Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025
Usefulness of urinary biomarker-based risk score and multiparametric MRI for clinically significant prostate cancer detection in biopsy-naïve patients.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kemesiene Jurate, Nicolau Carlos, Cholstauskas Gytis, Zviniene Kristina, Lopeta Mantvydas, Veneviciute Simona, Asmenaviciute Ieva, Tamosauskaite Kamile, Pikuniene Ingrida, Jievaltas Mindaugas
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), genetic urinary test (GUT), and prostate cancer prevention trial risk calculator version 2.0 (PCPTRC2) for the clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) diagnostic in biopsy-naïve patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a single center study between 2021 and 2024 participants underwent prostate mpMRI, GUT, and ultrasound (US) guided biopsy. The csPCa risk was calculated using PCPTRC2. After conducting a digital rectal examination (DRE), a GUT was performed. It incorporated the RNA levels of prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) and transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2) gene and ETS-related gene (ERG) fusion genes (T: E), along with the patient's age and PSA density. The McNemar test compared detection rates between modalities.
RESULTS: 208 (mean age 62.9 years +/- 8.2) men were included prospectively. A positive GUT score was found in 67.8% and PIRADS ≥3 in 81.7% of all cases. The combination of GUT with mpMRI showed significantly higher sensitivity (99.1%) than GUT and mpMRI alone, 84.4% and 93.8%, respectively (p ≤ 0.05). Similarly, very high sensitivity (99.0%) was achieved by combining mpMRI with PCPTCR2. Nevertheless, mpMRI plus GUT combination exceeded mpMRI plus PCPTCR2 by allowing to save a higher fraction of unnecessary biopsies, 25% and 2.4%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: GUT and mpMRI combination would allow saving a substantial fraction of unnecessary biopsies with minimal risk of missing csPCa cases.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a single center study between 2021 and 2024 participants underwent prostate mpMRI, GUT, and ultrasound (US) guided biopsy. The csPCa risk was calculated using PCPTRC2. After conducting a digital rectal examination (DRE), a GUT was performed. It incorporated the RNA levels of prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) and transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2) gene and ETS-related gene (ERG) fusion genes (T: E), along with the patient's age and PSA density. The McNemar test compared detection rates between modalities.
RESULTS: 208 (mean age 62.9 years +/- 8.2) men were included prospectively. A positive GUT score was found in 67.8% and PIRADS ≥3 in 81.7% of all cases. The combination of GUT with mpMRI showed significantly higher sensitivity (99.1%) than GUT and mpMRI alone, 84.4% and 93.8%, respectively (p ≤ 0.05). Similarly, very high sensitivity (99.0%) was achieved by combining mpMRI with PCPTCR2. Nevertheless, mpMRI plus GUT combination exceeded mpMRI plus PCPTCR2 by allowing to save a higher fraction of unnecessary biopsies, 25% and 2.4%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: GUT and mpMRI combination would allow saving a substantial fraction of unnecessary biopsies with minimal risk of missing csPCa cases.