Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based risk calculators (MRI-RCs) individualise the likelihood of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and improve candidate selection for prostate biopsy beyond the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS). Objective: To compare the Barcelona (BCN) and Rotterdam (ROT) MRI-RCs in an entire population and according to the PI-RADS categories. Design setting and participants: A prospective comparison of BCN- and ROT-RC in 946 men with suspected prostate cancer in whom systematic biopsy was performed, as well as target biopsies of PI-RADS ≥3 lesions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Saved biopsies and undetected csPCa (grade group ≥2) were determined. Results and limitations: = 0.116). BCN-RC showed a higher net benefit and clinical utility over ROT-RC. Using appropriate thresholds, respectively, 75% and 80% of biopsies were needed to identify 50% of csPCa detected in men with PI-RADS <3, whereas 35% and 21% of biopsies were saved, missing 10% of csPCa detected in men with PI-RADS 3. BCN-RC saved 15% of biopsies, missing 2% of csPCa in men with PI-RADS 4, whereas ROT-RC saved 10%, missing 6%. No RC saved biopsies without missing csPCa in men with PI-RADS 5. Conclusions: ROT-RC provided a lower and narrower range of csPCa probabilities than BCN-RC. BCN-RC showed a net benefit over ROT-RC in the entire population. However, BCN-RC was useful in men with PI-RADS 3 and 4, whereas ROT-RC was useful only in those with PI-RADS 3. No RC seemed to be helpful in men with negative MRI and PI-RADS 5. Patient summary: Barcelona risk calculator was more helpful than Rotterdam risk calculator to select candidates for prostate biopsy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moróte et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: