Kit Mun Chow, Alvin Lee, Daniel Peh, Yu Guang Tan, Kae Jack Tay, Henry Ho, Christopher Cheng, Winnie Lam, Sue Ping Thang, Jeffrey Tuan, Law Yan Mee, Thane Ngo, Li Yan Khor, John Yuen, Renu Eapen, Nathan Lawrentschuk, Michael Hofman, Declan Murphy, Kenneth Chen
{"title":"联合前列腺特异性膜抗原正电子发射断层扫描和多参数磁共振成像诊断临床意义重大的前列腺癌。","authors":"Kit Mun Chow, Alvin Lee, Daniel Peh, Yu Guang Tan, Kae Jack Tay, Henry Ho, Christopher Cheng, Winnie Lam, Sue Ping Thang, Jeffrey Tuan, Law Yan Mee, Thane Ngo, Li Yan Khor, John Yuen, Renu Eapen, Nathan Lawrentschuk, Michael Hofman, Declan Murphy, Kenneth Chen","doi":"10.1016/j.euo.2025.04.017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>More than half of men who undergo a prostate biopsy based on positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) findings do not have clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) may complement mpMRI to better triage men with suspected prostate cancer (PCa) and reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies performed. A diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of combined imaging for csPCa detection with pairwise comparisons with mpMRI and PSMA-PET alone. A decision curve analysis (DCA) compared the strategies of performing an upfront biopsy versus combined imaging for suspected PCa patients, across varying thresholds for accepting the risk of missing a csPCa diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search of the PubMed, Embase, Central, and Scopus databases, from inception to January 2024, was conducted. Twenty studies (2153 patients) that referenced combined imaging against histopathology were included. Bivariate meta-analyses and metaregression were performed to determine the diagnostic parameters and assess the differences between imaging modalities.</p><p><strong>Key findings and limitations: </strong>Combined imaging had sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value of, respectively, 92% (95% confidence interval [CI] 87, 95), 64% (95% CI 48, 77), 80% (95% CI 68, 92), and 82% (95% CI 68, 97) at patient-level, and 82% (95% CI 77, 94), 85% (95% CI 77, 94), 79% (95% CI 52, 97), and 81% (95% CI 74, 98) at lesion-level analyses. Head-to-head comparisons showed significantly higher specificity and PPV than mpMRI at patient- and lesion-level analyses. On the DCA, combined imaging outperforms upfront biopsy at risk thresholds of 8% onwards. Synchronous reading of PSMA-PET/computed tomography (CT) with mpMRI was significantly more sensitive but less specific than PSMA-PET/MRI.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and clinical implications: </strong>Combined imaging improves the diagnostic accuracy of csPCa and may help better select patients for a prostate biopsy.</p>","PeriodicalId":12256,"journal":{"name":"European urology oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Combined Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.\",\"authors\":\"Kit Mun Chow, Alvin Lee, Daniel Peh, Yu Guang Tan, Kae Jack Tay, Henry Ho, Christopher Cheng, Winnie Lam, Sue Ping Thang, Jeffrey Tuan, Law Yan Mee, Thane Ngo, Li Yan Khor, John Yuen, Renu Eapen, Nathan Lawrentschuk, Michael Hofman, Declan Murphy, Kenneth Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.euo.2025.04.017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>More than half of men who undergo a prostate biopsy based on positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) findings do not have clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) may complement mpMRI to better triage men with suspected prostate cancer (PCa) and reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies performed. A diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of combined imaging for csPCa detection with pairwise comparisons with mpMRI and PSMA-PET alone. A decision curve analysis (DCA) compared the strategies of performing an upfront biopsy versus combined imaging for suspected PCa patients, across varying thresholds for accepting the risk of missing a csPCa diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search of the PubMed, Embase, Central, and Scopus databases, from inception to January 2024, was conducted. Twenty studies (2153 patients) that referenced combined imaging against histopathology were included. Bivariate meta-analyses and metaregression were performed to determine the diagnostic parameters and assess the differences between imaging modalities.</p><p><strong>Key findings and limitations: </strong>Combined imaging had sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value of, respectively, 92% (95% confidence interval [CI] 87, 95), 64% (95% CI 48, 77), 80% (95% CI 68, 92), and 82% (95% CI 68, 97) at patient-level, and 82% (95% CI 77, 94), 85% (95% CI 77, 94), 79% (95% CI 52, 97), and 81% (95% CI 74, 98) at lesion-level analyses. Head-to-head comparisons showed significantly higher specificity and PPV than mpMRI at patient- and lesion-level analyses. On the DCA, combined imaging outperforms upfront biopsy at risk thresholds of 8% onwards. Synchronous reading of PSMA-PET/computed tomography (CT) with mpMRI was significantly more sensitive but less specific than PSMA-PET/MRI.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and clinical implications: </strong>Combined imaging improves the diagnostic accuracy of csPCa and may help better select patients for a prostate biopsy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12256,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European urology oncology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European urology oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2025.04.017\",\"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":"European urology oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2025.04.017","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景和目的:在多参数磁共振成像(mpMRI)阳性的前列腺活检中,超过一半的男性没有临床意义的前列腺癌。前列腺特异性膜抗原(PSMA)正电子发射断层扫描(PET)可以作为mpMRI的补充,更好地对疑似前列腺癌(PCa)患者进行分类,减少不必要的活检次数。进行诊断测试准确性系统评价和荟萃分析,以确定联合成像检测csPCa的诊断准确性,并与mpMRI和PSMA-PET单独进行两两比较。决策曲线分析(DCA)比较了对疑似PCa患者进行前期活检和联合成像的策略,跨越了接受遗漏csPCa诊断风险的不同阈值。方法:检索PubMed、Embase、Central和Scopus数据库,检索时间自成立至2024年1月。纳入了20项研究(2153例患者),参考了联合成像与组织病理学。进行双变量荟萃分析和元回归来确定诊断参数并评估成像方式之间的差异。主要发现和局限性:联合成像在患者水平上的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)和阴性预测值分别为92%(95%置信区间[CI] 87、95)、64% (95% CI 48、77)、80% (95% CI 68、92)和82% (95% CI 68、97),在病变水平分析上的敏感性、特异性和阳性预测值分别为82% (95% CI 77、94)、85% (95% CI 77、94)、79% (95% CI 52、97)和81% (95% CI 74、98)。在患者和病变水平的分析中,头部对头部的比较显示出明显高于mpMRI的特异性和PPV。在DCA中,联合成像在8%以上的风险阈值下优于前期活检。PSMA-PET/ CT与mpMRI的同步读数明显比PSMA-PET/MRI更敏感,但特异性较低。结论和临床意义:联合成像提高了csPCa的诊断准确性,有助于更好地选择患者进行前列腺活检。
Combined Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.
Background and objective: More than half of men who undergo a prostate biopsy based on positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) findings do not have clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) may complement mpMRI to better triage men with suspected prostate cancer (PCa) and reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies performed. A diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of combined imaging for csPCa detection with pairwise comparisons with mpMRI and PSMA-PET alone. A decision curve analysis (DCA) compared the strategies of performing an upfront biopsy versus combined imaging for suspected PCa patients, across varying thresholds for accepting the risk of missing a csPCa diagnosis.
Methods: A search of the PubMed, Embase, Central, and Scopus databases, from inception to January 2024, was conducted. Twenty studies (2153 patients) that referenced combined imaging against histopathology were included. Bivariate meta-analyses and metaregression were performed to determine the diagnostic parameters and assess the differences between imaging modalities.
Key findings and limitations: Combined imaging had sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value of, respectively, 92% (95% confidence interval [CI] 87, 95), 64% (95% CI 48, 77), 80% (95% CI 68, 92), and 82% (95% CI 68, 97) at patient-level, and 82% (95% CI 77, 94), 85% (95% CI 77, 94), 79% (95% CI 52, 97), and 81% (95% CI 74, 98) at lesion-level analyses. Head-to-head comparisons showed significantly higher specificity and PPV than mpMRI at patient- and lesion-level analyses. On the DCA, combined imaging outperforms upfront biopsy at risk thresholds of 8% onwards. Synchronous reading of PSMA-PET/computed tomography (CT) with mpMRI was significantly more sensitive but less specific than PSMA-PET/MRI.
Conclusions and clinical implications: Combined imaging improves the diagnostic accuracy of csPCa and may help better select patients for a prostate biopsy.
期刊介绍:
Journal Name: European Urology Oncology
Affiliation: Official Journal of the European Association of Urology
Focus:
First official publication of the EAU fully devoted to the study of genitourinary malignancies
Aims to deliver high-quality research
Content:
Includes original articles, opinion piece editorials, and invited reviews
Covers clinical, basic, and translational research
Publication Frequency: Six times a year in electronic format