Widespread use of PSA as the standard tool for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis led to a high rate of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. In this study, we evaluated the performance of the prostate health index (PHI) and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for the prediction of positive biopsy and of high‐grade PCa at radical prostatectomy (RP). To this end, we prospectively enrolled 196 biopsy‐naïve patients who underwent mpMRI. A subgroup of 116 subjects with biopsy‐proven PCa underwent surgery. We found that PHI significantly outperformed both PI‐RADS score (difference in AUC: 0.14; p < 0.001) and PHI density (difference in AUC: 0.08; p = 0.002) in the ability to predict positive biopsy with a cut‐off value of 42.7 as the best threshold. Conversely, comparing the performance in the identification of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) at RP, we found that PHI ≥61.68 and PI‐RADS score ≥4 were able to identify csPCa (Gleason score ≥7 (3 + 4)) both alone and added to a base model including age, PSA, fPSA‐to-tPSA ratio and prostate volume. In conclusion, PHI had a better ability than PI‐RADS score to predict positive biopsy, whereas it had a comparable performance in the identification of pathological csPCa.

Prostate health index and multiparametric mri: Partners in crime fighting overdiagnosis and overtreatment in prostate cancer

Crocetto F.;Bruzzese D.;Imbriaco M.;Longo N.;La Civita E.;Cennamo M.;Liotti A.;Lecce M.;Russo G.;Insabato L.;Imbimbo C.;Terracciano D.
2021

Abstract

Widespread use of PSA as the standard tool for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis led to a high rate of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. In this study, we evaluated the performance of the prostate health index (PHI) and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for the prediction of positive biopsy and of high‐grade PCa at radical prostatectomy (RP). To this end, we prospectively enrolled 196 biopsy‐naïve patients who underwent mpMRI. A subgroup of 116 subjects with biopsy‐proven PCa underwent surgery. We found that PHI significantly outperformed both PI‐RADS score (difference in AUC: 0.14; p < 0.001) and PHI density (difference in AUC: 0.08; p = 0.002) in the ability to predict positive biopsy with a cut‐off value of 42.7 as the best threshold. Conversely, comparing the performance in the identification of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) at RP, we found that PHI ≥61.68 and PI‐RADS score ≥4 were able to identify csPCa (Gleason score ≥7 (3 + 4)) both alone and added to a base model including age, PSA, fPSA‐to-tPSA ratio and prostate volume. In conclusion, PHI had a better ability than PI‐RADS score to predict positive biopsy, whereas it had a comparable performance in the identification of pathological csPCa.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
cancers-13-04723-v2-Copia.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Documento in Post-print
Licenza: Dominio pubblico
Dimensione 1.96 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.96 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11588/858645
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 16
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 16
social impact