4.5 Article

Outcome of 5-year follow-up in men with negative findings on initial biparametric MRI

期刊

HELIYON
卷 7, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08325

关键词

Biparametric MRI; Multiparametric MRI; Prostate cancer

资金

  1. Danish Cancer Society [R269-A15896]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

After a low-suspicion biparametric magnetic resonance imaging result, the 5-year risk of being diagnosed with significant prostate cancer was found to be 1.7% in this study population.
Background: We assessed the 5-year risk of being diagnosed with significant prostate cancer following a lowsuspicion biparametric magnetic resonance imaging result. Methods: The study population was derived from a prospective database used to assess the diagnostic accuracy of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging for significant prostate cancer detection in 1020 biopsy-naive men. Significant prostate cancer was defined as any core with Gleason grade group >3 or a maximum cancerous core length greater than 50% of Gleason grade group 2. A secondary definition of significant prostate cancer was also included: any core with prostate cancer Gleason grade group >2. Of the 1020 men, 305 had a low-suspicion biparametric magnetic resonance imaging result (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score of 1 or 2) but four men were excluded from follow-up. Thus, the final study population consisted of 301 men, who were clinically followed-up from inclusion (November 2015 to June 2017) until 1 June 2021. Findings: Overall, 1.7% (5/301) of the study population had significant prostate cancer diagnosed within 5 years (median 1480 days, Interquartile Range (1587-1382)) of their low-suspicion result and corresponding set of biopsies. When the secondary definition of significant prostate cancer was applied, this increased to 5% (15/301) of the study population. Interpretation: The 5-year risk of being diagnosed with significant prostate cancer after a prebiopsy low-suspicion prebiopsy biparametric magnetic resonance imaging result was 1.7%.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据