While Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 4 and 5 lesions usually justify prostate biopsy (PBx), the management of a PI-RADS 3 lesion can be discussed. The aim of our study was to determine the optimal prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) threshold and predictive factors of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in patients with a PI-RADS 3 lesion on MRI.
Using our prospectively maintained database, we conducted a monocentric retrospective study, including all patients with a clinical suspicious of prostate cancer (PCa), all of them had a PI-RADS 3 lesion on the mpMRI prior to PBx. Patients under active surveillance or displaying suspicious digital rectal examination were excluded. Clinically significant (csPCa) was defined as PCa with any ISUP grade group ≥ 2 (Gleason ≥ 3 + 4).
We included 158 patients. The detection rate of csPCa was 22.2%. In case of PSAD ≤ 0.15 ng/ml/cm3, PBx would be omitted in 71.5% (113/158) of men at the cost of missing 15.0% (17/113) of csPCa. With a threshold of 0.15 ng/ml/cm3, the sensitivity and the specificity were 0.51 and 0.78 respectively. The positive predictive value was 0.40 and the negative predictive value was 0.85. According to multivariate analysis, age (OR = 1.10, CI95% 1.03-1.19, P = 0.007), and PSAD ≥ 0.15 ng/ml/cm3 (OR = 3.59, CI95% 1.41-9.47, P = 0.008) were independent predictive factors of csPCa. Previous negative PBx was negatively associated with csPCa (OR = 0.24, CI 95% 0.07-0.66, P = 0.01).
Our result suggests that the optimal PSAD threshold was 0.15 ng/ml/cm3. However, in this case omitting PBx in 71.5% of cases would be at the cost of missing 15.0% of csPCa. PSAD should not be used alone, other predictive factors as age and PBx history should also be considered in the discussion with the patient, to avoid PBx while missing few csPCa.
Urologic oncology. 2023 Jun 28 [Epub ahead of print]
Truong-An Nguyen, Alexandre Fourcade, Audrey Zambon, Kevin Saout, Charles Deruelle, Vincent Joulin, Valentin Tissot, Laurent Doucet, François Rozet, Georges Fournier, Antoine Valeri
Urology Department, CHU Brest, Brest, France; Faculté de Médecine et des Sciences de la Santé, Université de Brest, Brest, France; LaTIM, INSERM, UMR 1101, CHU Brest, Brest, France. Electronic address: ., Urology Department, CHU Brest, Brest, France., Urology Department, CHU Brest, Brest, France; Faculté de Médecine et des Sciences de la Santé, Université de Brest, Brest, France., Radiology Department, CHU Brest, Brest, France., Pathology Department, CHU Brest, Brest, France., Urology Department, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France., Urology Department, CHU Brest, Brest, France; Faculté de Médecine et des Sciences de la Santé, Université de Brest, Brest, France; LaTIM, INSERM, UMR 1101, CHU Brest, Brest, France.