Combined Clinical Parameters and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Advanced Risk Modeling of Prostate Cancer-Patient-tailored Risk Stratification Can Reduce Unnecessary Biopsies.

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is gaining widespread acceptance in prostate cancer (PC) diagnosis and improves significant PC (sPC; Gleason score≥3+4) detection. Decision making based on European Randomised Study of Screening for PC (ERSPC) risk-calculator (RC) parameters may overcome prostate-specific antigen (PSA) limitations.

OBJECTIVE: We added pre-biopsy mpMRI to ERSPC-RC parameters and developed risk models (RMs) to predict individual sPC risk for biopsy-naïve men and men after previous biopsy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We retrospectively analyzed clinical parameters of 1159 men who underwent mpMRI prior to MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy between 2012 and 2015.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Multivariate regression analyses were used to determine significant sPC predictors for RM development. The prediction performance was compared with ERSPC-RCs, RCs refitted on our cohort, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v1.0, and ERSPC-RC plus PI-RADSv1.0 using receiver-operating characteristics (ROCs). Discrimination and calibration of the RM, as well as net decision and reduction curve analyses were evaluated based on resampling methods.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: PSA, prostate volume, digital-rectal examination, and PI-RADS were significant sPC predictors and included in the RMs together with age. The ROC area under the curve of the RM for biopsy-naïve men was comparable with ERSPC-RC3 plus PI-RADSv1.0 (0.83 vs 0.84) but larger compared with ERSPC-RC3 (0.81), refitted RC3 (0.80), and PI-RADS (0.76). For postbiopsy men, the novel RM's discrimination (0.81) was higher, compared with PI-RADS (0.78), ERSPC-RC4 (0.66), refitted RC4 (0.76), and ERSPC-RC4 plus PI-RADSv1.0 (0.78). Both RM benefits exceeded those of ERSPC-RCs and PI-RADS in the decision regarding which patient to receive biopsy and enabled the highest reduction rate of unnecessary biopsies. Limitations include a monocentric design and a lack of PI-RADSv2.0.

CONCLUSIONS: The novel RMs, incorporating clinical parameters and PI-RADS, performed significantly better compared with RMs without PI-RADS and provided measurable benefit in making the decision to biopsy men at a suspicion of PC. For biopsy-naïve patients, both our RM and ERSPC-RC3 plus PI-RADSv1.0 exceeded the prediction performance compared with clinical parameters alone.

PATIENT SUMMARY: Combined risk models including clinical and imaging parameters predict clinically relevant prostate cancer significantly better than clinical risk calculators and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging alone. The risk models demonstrate a benefit in making a decision about which patient needs a biopsy and concurrently help avoid unnecessary biopsies.