Beyond Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System: Combining Magnetic Resonance Imaging Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System and Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen-Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography PRIMARY Score in a Composite (P) Score for More Accurate Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer

Louise Emmett, Nathan Papa, Thomas A. Hope, Wolfgang Fendler, Jeremie Calais, Irene Burger, Matthias Eiber, Francesco Barbato, Daniel Moon, William Counter, Nikeith John, Alan Xue, Anthony Franklin, James Thompson, Kris Rasiah, Mark Frydenberg, John Yaxley, James Buteau, Shikha Agrawal, Bao HoAndrew Nguyen, Victor Liu, Jonathan Lee, Henry Woo, Edward Hsiao, Thomas Sutherland, Elyse Perry, Phillip Stricker, Michael S. Hofman, Veeru Kasivisvanathan, Matthew Roberts, Declan Murphy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

9 Scopus citations

Abstract

Purpose:The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score is standard of care for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) diagnosis. The PRIMARY score (prostate-specific membrane antigen [PSMA]-positron emission tomography [PET]/CT) also has high diagnostic accuracy for csPCa. This study aimed to develop an easily calculated combined (P) score for csPCa detection (International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] ≥2) incorporating separately read PI-RADS and PRIMARY scores, with external validation.Materials and Methods:Two datasets of men with suspected PCa, no prior biopsy, recent MRI and 68Ga-PSMA-11-PET/CT, and subsequent transperineal biopsy were evaluated. These included the development sample (n = 291, 56% csPCa) a prospective trial and the validation sample (n = 227, 67% csPCa) a multicenter retrospective database. Primary outcome was detection of csPCa (ISUP ≥2), with ISUP ≥ 3 cancer detection a secondary outcome. Score performance was evaluated by area under the curve, sensitivity, specificity, and decision curve analysis.Results:The 5-point combined (P) score was developed in a prospective dataset. In the validation dataset, csPCa was identified in 0%, 20%, 52%, 96%, and 100% for P score 1 to 5. The area under the curve was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90-0.96), higher than PI-RADS 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.93, P =.039) and PRIMARY score alone 0.84 (95% CI: 0.79-0.89, P <.001). Splitting scores at 1/2 (negative) vs 3/4/5 (positive), P score sensitivity was 94% (95% CI: 89-97) compared to PI-RADS 89% (95% CI: 83-93) and PRIMARY score 86% (95% CI: 79-91). For ISUP ≥ 3, P score sensitivity was 99% (95% CI: 95-100) vs 94% (95% CI: 88-98) and 92% (95% CI: 85-97) for PI-RADS and PRIMARY scores respectively. A maximum standardized uptake value > 12 (P score 5) was ISUP ≥ 2 in all cases with 93% ISUP ≥ 3.Conclusions:The P score is easily calculated and improves accuracy for csPCa over both PI-RADS and PRIMARY scores. It should be considered when PSMA-PET is undertaken for diagnosis.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)299-307
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Urology
Volume212
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Aug 2024

Keywords

  • PET
  • diagnosis
  • multi-parametric MRI
  • prostate cancer
  • prostate specific membrane antigen

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Beyond Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System: Combining Magnetic Resonance Imaging Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System and Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen-Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography PRIMARY Score in a Composite (P) Score for More Accurate Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this