Clinical and Radiological Factors for Predicting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Biopsy-Naive Patients With PI-RADS 3 Lesions

Abstract

Objective This study intends to examine the anticipatory power of clinical and radiological parameters in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in patients demonstrating Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 lesions. Methods This was a retrospective study. The study included participation from 453 patients at the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, sampled between September 2017 through August 2022. Each patient underwent a routine 12-core prostate biopsy followed by a 2 to 5 core fusion-targeted biopsy. We utilized both univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses to identify the parameters that have a correlation with clinically significant prostate cancer. The predictive ability of these parameters was assessed using the receiver operating characteristic curve, leading to the creation of a nomogram. Results Clinically significant prostate cancer was detected in 68 out of 453 patients with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 lesions (15.01%). Among Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3a and 3b patients, 4.78% (3.09% of the total) and 33.75% (11.92% of the total), respectively, had clinically significant prostate cancer. Systematic biopsy improved prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer detection rates by 7.72% and 3.09%, respectively, compared to targeted biopsy. Without systematic biopsy, there would be an undetected rate of 15% for prostate cancer and 8.13% for clinically significant prostate cancer in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3b patients. Several clinical parameters, including age, prostate-specific antigen density, lesion volume, apparent diffusion coefficient, and digital rectal examination, were statistically significant in the logistic regression analysis for clinically significant prostate cancer. The individual diagnostic accuracies of these parameters for clinically significant prostate cancer were 0.648, 0.645, 0.75, 0.763, and 0.7, respectively, but their combined accuracy improved to 0.866. A well-fit nomogram based on the identified risk factors was constructed (χ 2 = 10.254, P = .248). Conclusion The combination of age, prostate-specific antigen density, lesion volume, apparent diffusion coefficient, and digital rectal examination presented a higher diagnostic value for clinically significant prostate cancer than any single parameter in patients with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 lesions. Systematic biopsy proved crucial for biopsy-naive patients with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 lesions and should not be omitted.