Tamás Fazekas, Sung Ryul Shim, Giuseppe Basile, Michael Baboudjian, Tamás Kói, Mikolaj Przydacz, Mohammad Abufaraj, Guillaume Ploussard, Veeru Kasivisvanathan, Juan Gómez Rivas, Giorgio Gandaglia, Tibor Szarvas, Ivo G. Schoots, Roderick C. N. van den Bergh, Michael S. Leapman, Péter Nyirády, Shahrokh F. Shariat, Pawel Rajwa
{"title":"磁共振成像在前列腺癌筛查中的应用","authors":"Tamás Fazekas, Sung Ryul Shim, Giuseppe Basile, Michael Baboudjian, Tamás Kói, Mikolaj Przydacz, Mohammad Abufaraj, Guillaume Ploussard, Veeru Kasivisvanathan, Juan Gómez Rivas, Giorgio Gandaglia, Tibor Szarvas, Ivo G. Schoots, Roderick C. N. van den Bergh, Michael S. Leapman, Péter Nyirády, Shahrokh F. Shariat, Pawel Rajwa","doi":"10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0734","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ImportanceProstate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly integrated within the prostate cancer (PCa) early detection pathway.ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the existing evidence regarding screening pathways incorporating MRI with targeted biopsy and assess their diagnostic value compared with prostate-specific antigen (PSA)–based screening with systematic biopsy strategies.Data SourcesPubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane/Central, Scopus, and Web of Science (through May 2023).Study SelectionRandomized clinical trials and prospective cohort studies were eligible if they reported data on the diagnostic utility of prostate MRI in the setting of PCa screening.Data ExtractionNumber of screened individuals, biopsy indications, biopsies performed, clinically significant PCa (csPCa) defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 or higher, and insignificant (ISUP1) PCas detected were extracted.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was csPCa detection rate. Secondary outcomes included clinical insignificant PCa detection rate, biopsy indication rates, and the positive predictive value for the detection of csPCa.Data SynthesisThe generalized mixed-effect approach with pooled odds ratios (ORs) and random-effect models was used to compare the MRI-based and PSA-only screening strategies. Separate analyses were performed based on the timing of MRI (primary/sequential after a PSA test) and cutoff (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] score ≥3 or ≥4) for biopsy indication.ResultsData were synthesized from 80 114 men from 12 studies. Compared with standard PSA-based screening, the MRI pathway (sequential screening, PI-RADS score ≥3 cutoff for biopsy) was associated with higher odds of csPCa when tests results were positive (OR, 4.15; 95% CI, 2.93-5.88; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> ≤ .001), decreased odds of biopsies (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.22-0.36; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> ≤ .001), and insignificant cancers detected (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.23-0.49; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .002) without significant differences in the detection of csPCa (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.75-1.37; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .86). Implementing a PI-RADS score of 4 or greater threshold for biopsy selection was associated with a further reduction in the odds of detecting insignificant PCa (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.05-0.97; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .048) and biopsies performed (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.09-0.38; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .01) without differences in csPCa detection (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.49-1.45; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .22).Conclusion and relevanceThe results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that integrating MRI in PCa screening pathways is associated with a reduced number of unnecessary biopsies and overdiagnosis of insignificant PCa while maintaining csPCa detection as compared with PSA-only screening.","PeriodicalId":14850,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Oncology","volume":"127 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":22.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Screening\",\"authors\":\"Tamás Fazekas, Sung Ryul Shim, Giuseppe Basile, Michael Baboudjian, Tamás Kói, Mikolaj Przydacz, Mohammad Abufaraj, Guillaume Ploussard, Veeru Kasivisvanathan, Juan Gómez Rivas, Giorgio Gandaglia, Tibor Szarvas, Ivo G. Schoots, Roderick C. N. van den Bergh, Michael S. Leapman, Péter Nyirády, Shahrokh F. Shariat, Pawel Rajwa\",\"doi\":\"10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0734\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ImportanceProstate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly integrated within the prostate cancer (PCa) early detection pathway.ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the existing evidence regarding screening pathways incorporating MRI with targeted biopsy and assess their diagnostic value compared with prostate-specific antigen (PSA)–based screening with systematic biopsy strategies.Data SourcesPubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane/Central, Scopus, and Web of Science (through May 2023).Study SelectionRandomized clinical trials and prospective cohort studies were eligible if they reported data on the diagnostic utility of prostate MRI in the setting of PCa screening.Data ExtractionNumber of screened individuals, biopsy indications, biopsies performed, clinically significant PCa (csPCa) defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 or higher, and insignificant (ISUP1) PCas detected were extracted.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was csPCa detection rate. Secondary outcomes included clinical insignificant PCa detection rate, biopsy indication rates, and the positive predictive value for the detection of csPCa.Data SynthesisThe generalized mixed-effect approach with pooled odds ratios (ORs) and random-effect models was used to compare the MRI-based and PSA-only screening strategies. Separate analyses were performed based on the timing of MRI (primary/sequential after a PSA test) and cutoff (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] score ≥3 or ≥4) for biopsy indication.ResultsData were synthesized from 80 114 men from 12 studies. Compared with standard PSA-based screening, the MRI pathway (sequential screening, PI-RADS score ≥3 cutoff for biopsy) was associated with higher odds of csPCa when tests results were positive (OR, 4.15; 95% CI, 2.93-5.88; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> ≤ .001), decreased odds of biopsies (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.22-0.36; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> ≤ .001), and insignificant cancers detected (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.23-0.49; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .002) without significant differences in the detection of csPCa (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.75-1.37; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .86). Implementing a PI-RADS score of 4 or greater threshold for biopsy selection was associated with a further reduction in the odds of detecting insignificant PCa (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.05-0.97; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .048) and biopsies performed (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.09-0.38; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .01) without differences in csPCa detection (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.49-1.45; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = .22).Conclusion and relevanceThe results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that integrating MRI in PCa screening pathways is associated with a reduced number of unnecessary biopsies and overdiagnosis of insignificant PCa while maintaining csPCa detection as compared with PSA-only screening.\",\"PeriodicalId\":14850,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAMA Oncology\",\"volume\":\"127 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":22.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAMA Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0734\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0734","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Screening
ImportanceProstate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly integrated within the prostate cancer (PCa) early detection pathway.ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the existing evidence regarding screening pathways incorporating MRI with targeted biopsy and assess their diagnostic value compared with prostate-specific antigen (PSA)–based screening with systematic biopsy strategies.Data SourcesPubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane/Central, Scopus, and Web of Science (through May 2023).Study SelectionRandomized clinical trials and prospective cohort studies were eligible if they reported data on the diagnostic utility of prostate MRI in the setting of PCa screening.Data ExtractionNumber of screened individuals, biopsy indications, biopsies performed, clinically significant PCa (csPCa) defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 or higher, and insignificant (ISUP1) PCas detected were extracted.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was csPCa detection rate. Secondary outcomes included clinical insignificant PCa detection rate, biopsy indication rates, and the positive predictive value for the detection of csPCa.Data SynthesisThe generalized mixed-effect approach with pooled odds ratios (ORs) and random-effect models was used to compare the MRI-based and PSA-only screening strategies. Separate analyses were performed based on the timing of MRI (primary/sequential after a PSA test) and cutoff (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] score ≥3 or ≥4) for biopsy indication.ResultsData were synthesized from 80 114 men from 12 studies. Compared with standard PSA-based screening, the MRI pathway (sequential screening, PI-RADS score ≥3 cutoff for biopsy) was associated with higher odds of csPCa when tests results were positive (OR, 4.15; 95% CI, 2.93-5.88; P ≤ .001), decreased odds of biopsies (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.22-0.36; P ≤ .001), and insignificant cancers detected (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.23-0.49; P = .002) without significant differences in the detection of csPCa (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.75-1.37; P = .86). Implementing a PI-RADS score of 4 or greater threshold for biopsy selection was associated with a further reduction in the odds of detecting insignificant PCa (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.05-0.97; P = .048) and biopsies performed (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.09-0.38; P = .01) without differences in csPCa detection (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.49-1.45; P = .22).Conclusion and relevanceThe results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that integrating MRI in PCa screening pathways is associated with a reduced number of unnecessary biopsies and overdiagnosis of insignificant PCa while maintaining csPCa detection as compared with PSA-only screening.
期刊介绍:
JAMA Oncology is an international peer-reviewed journal that serves as the leading publication for scientists, clinicians, and trainees working in the field of oncology. It is part of the JAMA Network, a collection of peer-reviewed medical and specialty publications.