Loading…

Combined systematic versus stand-alone multiparametric MRI-guided targeted fusion biopsy: nomogram prediction of non-organ-confined prostate cancer

Objective Based on unfavorable oncological and functional outcomes of non-organ-confined (NOC) prostate cancer (PCa), defined as ≥ pT3, pN1 or both, we aimed to develop a NOC prediction tool based on multiparametric MRI-guided targeted fusion biopsy (TBx). Materials and methods Analyses were restric...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:World journal of urology 2021, Vol.39 (1), p.81-88
Main Authors: Leyh-Bannurah, Sami-Ramzi, Kachanov, Mykyta, Karakiewicz, Pierre I., Beyersdorff, Dirk, Pompe, Raisa S., Oh-Hohenhorst, Su Jung, Fisch, Margit, Maurer, Tobias, Graefen, Markus, Budäus, Lars
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-e7d6e06c7a455737249bc0e160939ebfaea34239493c0930a2d726aec24423cf3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-e7d6e06c7a455737249bc0e160939ebfaea34239493c0930a2d726aec24423cf3
container_end_page 88
container_issue 1
container_start_page 81
container_title World journal of urology
container_volume 39
creator Leyh-Bannurah, Sami-Ramzi
Kachanov, Mykyta
Karakiewicz, Pierre I.
Beyersdorff, Dirk
Pompe, Raisa S.
Oh-Hohenhorst, Su Jung
Fisch, Margit
Maurer, Tobias
Graefen, Markus
Budäus, Lars
description Objective Based on unfavorable oncological and functional outcomes of non-organ-confined (NOC) prostate cancer (PCa), defined as ≥ pT3, pN1 or both, we aimed to develop a NOC prediction tool based on multiparametric MRI-guided targeted fusion biopsy (TBx). Materials and methods Analyses were restricted to 594 patients with simultaneous PCa detection at systematic biopsy (SBx), TBx and subsequent radical prostatectomy (RP) at our institution. Development ( n  = 396; cohort 1) and validation cohorts ( n  = 198; cohort 2) were used to develop and validate the NOC nomogram. A head-to-head comparison was performed between stand-alone TBx model and combined TBx/SBx model. Second validation was performed in patients with positive TBx, but negative SBx ( n  = 193; cohort 3). Results The most parsimonious TBx model included three independent predictors of NOC: pretreatment PSA (OR 1.05 95% CI: 1.01–1.08), highest TBx-detected Gleason pattern (3 + 3 [REF] vs. ≥ 4 + 5; OR 9.3 95% CI 3.8–22) and presence of TBx-detected perineural invasion (OR 2.2 95% CI: 1.3–3.6). The combined TBx/SBx model had the same predictors. For the stand-alone TBx and combined TBx/SBx model, external validation yielded accuracy of 76.5% (95% CI: 69.3–83.1) and 76.6% (95% CI: 69.4–83.6) within cohort 2. The external validation of the stand-alone TBx model yielded 72.4% (95% CI: 65.0–79.6) accuracy within cohort 3. Conclusion Our stand-alone TBx-based nomogram can identify PCa patients at the risk of NOC, using three simple variables, with the similar accuracy as the TBx/SBx-based model. It is non-inferior to combined TBx/SBx-based model and performs with sufficient accuracy in specific patients with positive TBx, but negative SBx.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00345-020-03176-1
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2386434390</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2386434390</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-e7d6e06c7a455737249bc0e160939ebfaea34239493c0930a2d726aec24423cf3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kcFu1DAQhi0EotvCC3BAkbhwMTgeJ95wQyuglYqQEJwtx5lErhI72E6lfQ5emGm3gMSBk62Z75_f45-xF7V4Uwuh32YhQDVcSMEF1Lrl9SO2qxUA32vZPmY7oaXiqtvDGTvP-UYIgkTzlJ2BlGoPLezYz0Nceh9wqPIxF1xs8a66xZS3XOViw8DtHANWyzYXv9pkFyyJkM9fr_i0-YGExaYJC13GLfsYqt7HNR_fVSEucSJBtSYcvCt3vThSOfCYJhu4i2G8t15TJK-ClbPBYXrGnox2zvj84bxg3z9--Ha45NdfPl0d3l9zB7opHPXQomidtqppNNCuXe8E1q3ooMN-tGhBSehUB45KwsqBvsWik4rKboQL9vo0l_x_bJiLWXx2OM82YNyykbBvFSjoBKGv_kFv4pYCvc7QTzYdaGglUfJEOVooJxzNmvxi09HUwtxFZk6RGYrM3EdmahK9fBi99QsOfyS_MyIATkCmVpgw_fX-z9hfKfuj6g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2485937362</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Combined systematic versus stand-alone multiparametric MRI-guided targeted fusion biopsy: nomogram prediction of non-organ-confined prostate cancer</title><source>Springer Link</source><creator>Leyh-Bannurah, Sami-Ramzi ; Kachanov, Mykyta ; Karakiewicz, Pierre I. ; Beyersdorff, Dirk ; Pompe, Raisa S. ; Oh-Hohenhorst, Su Jung ; Fisch, Margit ; Maurer, Tobias ; Graefen, Markus ; Budäus, Lars</creator><creatorcontrib>Leyh-Bannurah, Sami-Ramzi ; Kachanov, Mykyta ; Karakiewicz, Pierre I. ; Beyersdorff, Dirk ; Pompe, Raisa S. ; Oh-Hohenhorst, Su Jung ; Fisch, Margit ; Maurer, Tobias ; Graefen, Markus ; Budäus, Lars</creatorcontrib><description>Objective Based on unfavorable oncological and functional outcomes of non-organ-confined (NOC) prostate cancer (PCa), defined as ≥ pT3, pN1 or both, we aimed to develop a NOC prediction tool based on multiparametric MRI-guided targeted fusion biopsy (TBx). Materials and methods Analyses were restricted to 594 patients with simultaneous PCa detection at systematic biopsy (SBx), TBx and subsequent radical prostatectomy (RP) at our institution. Development ( n  = 396; cohort 1) and validation cohorts ( n  = 198; cohort 2) were used to develop and validate the NOC nomogram. A head-to-head comparison was performed between stand-alone TBx model and combined TBx/SBx model. Second validation was performed in patients with positive TBx, but negative SBx ( n  = 193; cohort 3). Results The most parsimonious TBx model included three independent predictors of NOC: pretreatment PSA (OR 1.05 95% CI: 1.01–1.08), highest TBx-detected Gleason pattern (3 + 3 [REF] vs. ≥ 4 + 5; OR 9.3 95% CI 3.8–22) and presence of TBx-detected perineural invasion (OR 2.2 95% CI: 1.3–3.6). The combined TBx/SBx model had the same predictors. For the stand-alone TBx and combined TBx/SBx model, external validation yielded accuracy of 76.5% (95% CI: 69.3–83.1) and 76.6% (95% CI: 69.4–83.6) within cohort 2. The external validation of the stand-alone TBx model yielded 72.4% (95% CI: 65.0–79.6) accuracy within cohort 3. Conclusion Our stand-alone TBx-based nomogram can identify PCa patients at the risk of NOC, using three simple variables, with the similar accuracy as the TBx/SBx-based model. It is non-inferior to combined TBx/SBx-based model and performs with sufficient accuracy in specific patients with positive TBx, but negative SBx.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0724-4983</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1433-8726</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00345-020-03176-1</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32248363</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Biopsy ; Cancer surgery ; Magnetic resonance imaging ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Nephrology ; Nomograms ; Oncology ; Original Article ; Prostate cancer ; Prostatectomy ; Urological surgery ; Urology</subject><ispartof>World journal of urology, 2021, Vol.39 (1), p.81-88</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020</rights><rights>Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-e7d6e06c7a455737249bc0e160939ebfaea34239493c0930a2d726aec24423cf3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-e7d6e06c7a455737249bc0e160939ebfaea34239493c0930a2d726aec24423cf3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32248363$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Leyh-Bannurah, Sami-Ramzi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kachanov, Mykyta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karakiewicz, Pierre I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beyersdorff, Dirk</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pompe, Raisa S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oh-Hohenhorst, Su Jung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fisch, Margit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maurer, Tobias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Graefen, Markus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Budäus, Lars</creatorcontrib><title>Combined systematic versus stand-alone multiparametric MRI-guided targeted fusion biopsy: nomogram prediction of non-organ-confined prostate cancer</title><title>World journal of urology</title><addtitle>World J Urol</addtitle><addtitle>World J Urol</addtitle><description>Objective Based on unfavorable oncological and functional outcomes of non-organ-confined (NOC) prostate cancer (PCa), defined as ≥ pT3, pN1 or both, we aimed to develop a NOC prediction tool based on multiparametric MRI-guided targeted fusion biopsy (TBx). Materials and methods Analyses were restricted to 594 patients with simultaneous PCa detection at systematic biopsy (SBx), TBx and subsequent radical prostatectomy (RP) at our institution. Development ( n  = 396; cohort 1) and validation cohorts ( n  = 198; cohort 2) were used to develop and validate the NOC nomogram. A head-to-head comparison was performed between stand-alone TBx model and combined TBx/SBx model. Second validation was performed in patients with positive TBx, but negative SBx ( n  = 193; cohort 3). Results The most parsimonious TBx model included three independent predictors of NOC: pretreatment PSA (OR 1.05 95% CI: 1.01–1.08), highest TBx-detected Gleason pattern (3 + 3 [REF] vs. ≥ 4 + 5; OR 9.3 95% CI 3.8–22) and presence of TBx-detected perineural invasion (OR 2.2 95% CI: 1.3–3.6). The combined TBx/SBx model had the same predictors. For the stand-alone TBx and combined TBx/SBx model, external validation yielded accuracy of 76.5% (95% CI: 69.3–83.1) and 76.6% (95% CI: 69.4–83.6) within cohort 2. The external validation of the stand-alone TBx model yielded 72.4% (95% CI: 65.0–79.6) accuracy within cohort 3. Conclusion Our stand-alone TBx-based nomogram can identify PCa patients at the risk of NOC, using three simple variables, with the similar accuracy as the TBx/SBx-based model. It is non-inferior to combined TBx/SBx-based model and performs with sufficient accuracy in specific patients with positive TBx, but negative SBx.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Cancer surgery</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Nephrology</subject><subject>Nomograms</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Prostate cancer</subject><subject>Prostatectomy</subject><subject>Urological surgery</subject><subject>Urology</subject><issn>0724-4983</issn><issn>1433-8726</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kcFu1DAQhi0EotvCC3BAkbhwMTgeJ95wQyuglYqQEJwtx5lErhI72E6lfQ5emGm3gMSBk62Z75_f45-xF7V4Uwuh32YhQDVcSMEF1Lrl9SO2qxUA32vZPmY7oaXiqtvDGTvP-UYIgkTzlJ2BlGoPLezYz0Nceh9wqPIxF1xs8a66xZS3XOViw8DtHANWyzYXv9pkFyyJkM9fr_i0-YGExaYJC13GLfsYqt7HNR_fVSEucSJBtSYcvCt3vThSOfCYJhu4i2G8t15TJK-ClbPBYXrGnox2zvj84bxg3z9--Ha45NdfPl0d3l9zB7opHPXQomidtqppNNCuXe8E1q3ooMN-tGhBSehUB45KwsqBvsWik4rKboQL9vo0l_x_bJiLWXx2OM82YNyykbBvFSjoBKGv_kFv4pYCvc7QTzYdaGglUfJEOVooJxzNmvxi09HUwtxFZk6RGYrM3EdmahK9fBi99QsOfyS_MyIATkCmVpgw_fX-z9hfKfuj6g</recordid><startdate>2021</startdate><enddate>2021</enddate><creator>Leyh-Bannurah, Sami-Ramzi</creator><creator>Kachanov, Mykyta</creator><creator>Karakiewicz, Pierre I.</creator><creator>Beyersdorff, Dirk</creator><creator>Pompe, Raisa S.</creator><creator>Oh-Hohenhorst, Su Jung</creator><creator>Fisch, Margit</creator><creator>Maurer, Tobias</creator><creator>Graefen, Markus</creator><creator>Budäus, Lars</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2021</creationdate><title>Combined systematic versus stand-alone multiparametric MRI-guided targeted fusion biopsy: nomogram prediction of non-organ-confined prostate cancer</title><author>Leyh-Bannurah, Sami-Ramzi ; Kachanov, Mykyta ; Karakiewicz, Pierre I. ; Beyersdorff, Dirk ; Pompe, Raisa S. ; Oh-Hohenhorst, Su Jung ; Fisch, Margit ; Maurer, Tobias ; Graefen, Markus ; Budäus, Lars</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-e7d6e06c7a455737249bc0e160939ebfaea34239493c0930a2d726aec24423cf3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Cancer surgery</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Nephrology</topic><topic>Nomograms</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Prostate cancer</topic><topic>Prostatectomy</topic><topic>Urological surgery</topic><topic>Urology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Leyh-Bannurah, Sami-Ramzi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kachanov, Mykyta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karakiewicz, Pierre I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beyersdorff, Dirk</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pompe, Raisa S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oh-Hohenhorst, Su Jung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fisch, Margit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maurer, Tobias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Graefen, Markus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Budäus, Lars</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Databases</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>World journal of urology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Leyh-Bannurah, Sami-Ramzi</au><au>Kachanov, Mykyta</au><au>Karakiewicz, Pierre I.</au><au>Beyersdorff, Dirk</au><au>Pompe, Raisa S.</au><au>Oh-Hohenhorst, Su Jung</au><au>Fisch, Margit</au><au>Maurer, Tobias</au><au>Graefen, Markus</au><au>Budäus, Lars</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Combined systematic versus stand-alone multiparametric MRI-guided targeted fusion biopsy: nomogram prediction of non-organ-confined prostate cancer</atitle><jtitle>World journal of urology</jtitle><stitle>World J Urol</stitle><addtitle>World J Urol</addtitle><date>2021</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>39</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>81</spage><epage>88</epage><pages>81-88</pages><issn>0724-4983</issn><eissn>1433-8726</eissn><abstract>Objective Based on unfavorable oncological and functional outcomes of non-organ-confined (NOC) prostate cancer (PCa), defined as ≥ pT3, pN1 or both, we aimed to develop a NOC prediction tool based on multiparametric MRI-guided targeted fusion biopsy (TBx). Materials and methods Analyses were restricted to 594 patients with simultaneous PCa detection at systematic biopsy (SBx), TBx and subsequent radical prostatectomy (RP) at our institution. Development ( n  = 396; cohort 1) and validation cohorts ( n  = 198; cohort 2) were used to develop and validate the NOC nomogram. A head-to-head comparison was performed between stand-alone TBx model and combined TBx/SBx model. Second validation was performed in patients with positive TBx, but negative SBx ( n  = 193; cohort 3). Results The most parsimonious TBx model included three independent predictors of NOC: pretreatment PSA (OR 1.05 95% CI: 1.01–1.08), highest TBx-detected Gleason pattern (3 + 3 [REF] vs. ≥ 4 + 5; OR 9.3 95% CI 3.8–22) and presence of TBx-detected perineural invasion (OR 2.2 95% CI: 1.3–3.6). The combined TBx/SBx model had the same predictors. For the stand-alone TBx and combined TBx/SBx model, external validation yielded accuracy of 76.5% (95% CI: 69.3–83.1) and 76.6% (95% CI: 69.4–83.6) within cohort 2. The external validation of the stand-alone TBx model yielded 72.4% (95% CI: 65.0–79.6) accuracy within cohort 3. Conclusion Our stand-alone TBx-based nomogram can identify PCa patients at the risk of NOC, using three simple variables, with the similar accuracy as the TBx/SBx-based model. It is non-inferior to combined TBx/SBx-based model and performs with sufficient accuracy in specific patients with positive TBx, but negative SBx.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>32248363</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00345-020-03176-1</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0724-4983
ispartof World journal of urology, 2021, Vol.39 (1), p.81-88
issn 0724-4983
1433-8726
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2386434390
source Springer Link
subjects Accuracy
Biopsy
Cancer surgery
Magnetic resonance imaging
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Nephrology
Nomograms
Oncology
Original Article
Prostate cancer
Prostatectomy
Urological surgery
Urology
title Combined systematic versus stand-alone multiparametric MRI-guided targeted fusion biopsy: nomogram prediction of non-organ-confined prostate cancer
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T07%3A20%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Combined%20systematic%20versus%20stand-alone%20multiparametric%20MRI-guided%20targeted%20fusion%20biopsy:%20nomogram%20prediction%20of%20non-organ-confined%20prostate%20cancer&rft.jtitle=World%20journal%20of%20urology&rft.au=Leyh-Bannurah,%20Sami-Ramzi&rft.date=2021&rft.volume=39&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=81&rft.epage=88&rft.pages=81-88&rft.issn=0724-4983&rft.eissn=1433-8726&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00345-020-03176-1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2386434390%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-e7d6e06c7a455737249bc0e160939ebfaea34239493c0930a2d726aec24423cf3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2485937362&rft_id=info:pmid/32248363&rfr_iscdi=true