Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies

Usefulness of Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Combined With Prostate Specific Antigen Density in Pre-biopsy Detection of Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer

SHO SEKITO, TAKASHI TERABE, TAKUJI SHIBAHARA and TAKEHISA ONISHI
Anticancer Research April 2021, 41 (4) 2183-2186; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.14992
SHO SEKITO
Department of Urology, Ise Red Cross Hospital, Ise, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: momosekisho@gmail.com
TAKASHI TERABE
Department of Urology, Ise Red Cross Hospital, Ise, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
TAKUJI SHIBAHARA
Department of Urology, Ise Red Cross Hospital, Ise, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
TAKEHISA ONISHI
Department of Urology, Ise Red Cross Hospital, Ise, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background/Aim: The aim of this study was to identify simple and reliable factors to detect clinically insignificant prostate cancer (PC) for avoiding immediate prostate biopsies using biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which consists of T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted imaging. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 427 men with suspected PC, who underwent biparametric MRI and standard 12-core transrectal prostate biopsy. MRI and prostate specific antigen density (PSAD) were analysed. To evaluate the combination of the two parameters, patients were divided into three groups (Group A: MRI negative and PSAD <0.23, Group B: MRI positive or PSAD ≥0.23, Group C: MRI positive and PSAD ≥0.23). A grade of ≥2 was defined as clinically significant PC. Results: Clinically significant PC was detected in 46.5% of men with positive MRI findings, and 60.0% of men with PSAD ≥0.23. When combining MRI and PSAD, detection rates of clinically significant PC were 10.0%, 28.4% and 65.3% in group A, B and, C, respectively. Conclusion: Negative biparametric MRI findings with PSAD <0.23 might be a reliable evidence for avoiding immediate prostate biopsies.

Key Words:
  • Biparametric magnetic resonance imaging
  • clinically significant prostate cancer
  • transrectal prostate biopsy

Prostate biopsies are usually offered to men suspected of having prostate cancer (PC) due to elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. However, men without PC or with clinically insignificant PC undergo unnecessary biopsies and overtreatment. The detection rate of PC is low in men who undergo a biopsy only because of elevated PSA levels (1). As PSA has a high false-positive rate, not only PSA but also other tools are needed for screening clinically significant PC. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has recently been widely used for the detection of significant prostate cancer. Using mpMRI as a triage test before a prostate biopsy would reduce unnecessary biopsies (2). However, mpMRI consists of T2-weighted imaging (T2WI), diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and perfusion weighting imaging. The use of intravenous contrast medium can cause adverse effects, such as an acute reaction and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis, and is very time-consuming. In contrast, biparametric MRI (bpMRI) requires fewer scan sequences (T2WI and DWI), no intravenous contrast media, shorter image acquisition time, and has lower cost than mpMRI. Therefore, bpMRI would be adequate as a simple triage test before a prostate biopsy. The aim of the present study was to detect simple and reliable factors predicting clinically insignificant PC for avoiding unnecessary prostatic biopsies in clinical practice.

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively evaluated men with suspected PC who underwent prostate biopsy in our institution from August 2016 to April 2019. The exclusion criteria were PSA >20 ng/ml, have not performed bpMRI, and have not underwent 12 core biopsies. All patients underwent standard 12-core transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsies. The final study population consisted of 427 men. In patients with bpMRI suspicious lesions, cognitive target biopsy near the individual standard biopsy area was performed. MRI images were acquired on a 1.5T MRI scanner (Sibna, GE Medical systems, Milwaukee, MI, USA). All patient examinations included T2WI, DWI and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC). The prostate volume was acquired from the MRI (axial and coronal), and calculated according to the solid ellipse formula (length × width × height × π/6). MRI findings were analysed by three urologists. The histopathological examination was performed by a single pathologist. A grade of 2 or higher was defined as clinically significant prostate cancer.

Statistical analyses were performed with EZR (Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan), which is a graphical user interface for R (The R Foundation for statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). More precisely, it is a modified version of R commander designed to add statistical functions frequently used in biostatics (3).

Results

Median age was 70 years old (range=42-86 years), median PSA levels were 7.3 ng/ml (range=1.4-20.0 ng/ml), median prostate volume was 30 ml (range=10-120 ml). Three hundred and sixty-one, 55 and 11 men underwent a first, second and third biopsy, respectively. PC was detected in 260 of 427 men (60.9%), and 173 of 427 men (40.5%) had clinically significant PC (Table I). Clinically significant PC was detected in 46.5% of men with positive MRI findings, and 21.0% of men with negative MRI findings. Median PSAD was 0.24. Using ROC analysis, the optimal cut-off value for PSAD was 0.23 with a sensitivity of 66.9% and specificity of 73.4% [AUC=0.73 (95%CI=0.684-0.781)]. In multivariate analysis, MRI findings [odds ratio (OR)=2.9; p=0.0002] and PSAD (OR=3.4; p<0.0001) were revealed as independent predictors of clinically significant PC (Table II). We divided men into three groups in accordance with the combination of the two parameters (Group A: MRI negative and PSAD <0.23, Group B: MRI positive or PSAD ≥0.23, Group C: MRI positive and PSAD ≥0.23). When combining MRI and PSAD, detection rates of clinically significant PC were 10.0%, 28.4% and 65.3% in group A, B and C, respectively (Table III).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Participant characteristics.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

Factors to predict clinically significant prostate cancer.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table III.

Parameters to detect clinically significant prostate cancer.

Discussion

There has been a development of certain predictive models to predict the existence of PC. These models consider factors including PSA, age, family history, ethnicity, digital rectal examination, % free PSA, transrectal ultrasonography, prostate volume and PSAD. However, there remains no consensus whether predictive models could improve long-term PC risk (4).

In the present study, age, PSA, PSAD and MRI findings were independent factors in multivariate analysis. On the contrary, prostate volume was not an independent predictive factor for the detection of clinically significant PC.

PSAD has been demonstrated to be a simple and valuable predictor of clinically significant PC (5, 6). Nordstrom et al. reported that among men with a PSAD of <0.1, 0.15-0.19 and >0.2 ng/ml/cc, 6.2%, 27.7%, and 46.2% had clinically significant PC, respectively (5). In our study, the detection rates of clinically significant PC were 21.7% and 60.0% in men with a PSAD of <0.23 and ≥0.23, respectively.

Prebiopsy mpMRI has emerged as a tool to detect clinically significant PC. Its detection rate is higher than that of ultrasound (7). Therefore, target biopsy with mpMRI could be useful for detecting significant prostate cancer. On the other hand, the negative predictive value ranged from 63% to 98% (8). It is not sufficient to use only mpMRI as a triage test. Several reports have shown the diagnostic accuracy of mpMRI in combination with other parameters including PSA, PSAD and age (9, 10). Kobt et al. reported that clinically significant PC was diagnosed in 7% men with both PSAD <0.15 and low suspicion of mpMRI (10).

Regarding prostate MRI, mpMRI is recommended according to guidelines (11, 12), however, it requires intravenous contrast media, is time-consuming and has higher cost. Therefore, it might be difficult to apply to all biopsy-naïve men with elevated PSA levels.

In contrast, bpMRI requires fewer sequences, less image acquisition time, and has a lower cost. Previous reports showed that the value of dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging is controversial. Wang et al. reported that DWI PIRADS score 3 lesions in peripheral zone dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging has not improved for the detection of clinically significant PC (13). DWI is the most promising image for evaluating prostate cancer in mpMRI (14). Pepe et al. reported that apparent diffusion coefficient value is significantly correlated with the presence of clinically significant PC (15). Some studies evaluated the accuracy of bpMRI compared with mpMRI (16-18). Di Campil et al. reported that there was no significant difference regarding the evaluation of clinically significant PC among three radiologists between bpMRI and mpMRI (16). Scialpi et al. also reported that bpMRI has the same sensitivity for detecting clinically significant PC compared to mpMRI, both in the peripheral zone and in the transitional zone (17). Furthermore, Mussi TC et al. showed that the use of contrast enhancement in mpMRI did not increase the detection of clinically significant PC, and had similar sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value as compared to a non-contrast protocol (18). In this study, clinically significant PC were detected in 46.5% of men with positive MRI findings, and in 21.0% of men with negative MRI findings. That is comparable to the previous studies using mpMRI (2, 8).

Several reports have been published that the combination with bpMRI and PSAD improves diagnostic accuracy of detecting clinically significant PC (19-21). Bossen et al. reported that only 5% of biopsy naive men with low or equivocal suspicion bpMRI findings and a PSAD value of <0.15 ng/ml/cc had clinically significant PC (19). Our study also demonstrated that 10% men with negative MRI findings and PSAD of <0.23 had clinically significant PC. Thus, the men with negative MRI findings and PSAD of <0.23 could be candidates to avoid immediate prostate biopsy.

This study has several limitations. This is a retrospective, single institution study. The real-time fusion technique was not used for prostate cancer suspicious regions on MRI. However, our study is necessary in terms of practicing only transrectal 12 core biopsy with the cognitive target technique when real-time fusion or trans-perineal biopsy is not available.

In conclusion, the combination of negative MRI findings with low PSAD is a simple and reliable tool for helping decision making of prostate biopsy and avoiding unnecessary biopsy for men without clinically significant PC.

Footnotes

  • Authors’ Contributions

    S Sekito: Data collection, Data analysis, Manuscript writing; T Terabe: Data collection; T Shibahara: Data collection; T Onishi: Data collection, Data analysis, Manuscript revision. All Authors read and approved the final manuscript.

  • Conflicts of Interest

    The Authors have stated that they have no conflicts of interest in relation to this study.

  • Received February 19, 2021.
  • Revision received March 6, 2021.
  • Accepted March 8, 2021.
  • Copyright © 2021 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Schröder FH,
    2. Hugosson J,
    3. Roobol MJ,
    4. Tammela TL,
    5. Ciatto S,
    6. Nelen V,
    7. Kwiatkowski M,
    8. Lujan M,
    9. Lilja H,
    10. Zappa M,
    11. Denis LJ,
    12. Recker F,
    13. Berenguer A,
    14. Määttänen L,
    15. Bangma CH,
    16. Aus G,
    17. Villers A,
    18. Rebillard X,
    19. van der Kwast T,
    20. Blijenberg BG,
    21. Moss SM,
    22. de Koning HJ,
    23. Auvinen A and ERSPC Investigators
    : Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 360(13): 1320-1328, 2009. PMID: 19297566. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810084
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Ahmed HU,
    2. El-Shater Bosaily A,
    3. Brown LC,
    4. Gabe R,
    5. Kaplan R,
    6. Parmar MK,
    7. Collaco-Moraes Y,
    8. Ward K,
    9. Hindley RG,
    10. Freeman A,
    11. Kirkham AP,
    12. Oldroyd R,
    13. Parker C,
    14. Emberton M and PROMIS study group
    : Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): A paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389(10071): 815-822, 2017. PMID: 28110982. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Kanda Y
    : Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software ‘EZR’ for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant 48(3): 452-458, 2013. PMID: 23208313. DOI: 10.1038/bmt.2012.244
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Louie KS,
    2. Seigneurin A,
    3. Cathcart P and
    4. Sasieni P
    : Do prostate cancer risk models improve the predictive accuracy of PSA screening? A meta-analysis. Ann Oncol 26(5): 848-864, 2015. PMID: 25403590. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdu525
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Nordström T,
    2. Akre O,
    3. Aly M,
    4. Grönberg H and
    5. Eklund M
    : Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density in the diagnostic algorithm of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 21(1): 57-63, 2018. PMID: 29259293. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-017-0024-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Aminsharifi A,
    2. Howard L,
    3. Wu Y,
    4. De Hoedt A,
    5. Bailey C,
    6. Freedland SJ and
    7. Polascik TJ
    : Prostate specific antigen density as a predictor of clinically significant prostate cancer when the prostate specific antigen is in the diagnostic gray zone: Defining the optimum cutoff point stratified by race and body mass index. J Urol 200(4): 758-766, 2018. PMID: 29758219. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.05.016
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Drudi FM,
    2. Cantisani V,
    3. Angelini F,
    4. Ciccariello M,
    5. Messineo D,
    6. Ettorre E,
    7. Liberatore M and
    8. Scialpi M
    : Multiparametric MRI versus multiparametric US in the detection of prostate cancer. Anticancer Res 39(6): 3101-3110, 2019. PMID: 31177155. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.13446
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Fütterer JJ,
    2. Briganti A,
    3. De Visschere P,
    4. Emberton M,
    5. Giannarini G,
    6. Kirkham A,
    7. Taneja SS,
    8. Thoeny H,
    9. Villeirs G and
    10. Villers A
    : Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 68(6): 1045-1053, 2015. PMID: 25656808. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Panebianco V,
    2. Barchetti G,
    3. Simone G,
    4. Del Monte M,
    5. Ciardi A,
    6. Grompone MD,
    7. Campa R,
    8. Indino EL,
    9. Barchetti F,
    10. Sciarra A,
    11. Leonardo C,
    12. Gallucci M and
    13. Catalano C
    : Negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: What’s next? Eur Urol 74(1): 48-54, 2018. PMID: 29566957. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.03.007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Kotb AF,
    2. Spaner S,
    3. Crump T and
    4. Hyndman ME
    : The role of mpMRI and PSA density in patients with an initial negative prostatic biopsy. World J Urol 36(12): 2021-2025, 2018. PMID: 29808301. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2341-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Barentsz JO,
    2. Richenberg J,
    3. Clements R,
    4. Choyke P,
    5. Verma S,
    6. Villeirs G,
    7. Rouviere O,
    8. Logager V,
    9. Fütterer JJ and European Society of Urogenital Radiology
    : ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22(4): 746-757, 2012. PMID: 22322308. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Rosenkrantz AB,
    2. Verma S,
    3. Choyke P,
    4. Eberhardt SC,
    5. Eggener SE,
    6. Gaitonde K,
    7. Haider MA,
    8. Margolis DJ,
    9. Marks LS,
    10. Pinto P,
    11. Sonn GA and
    12. Taneja SS
    : Prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a prior negative biopsy: A consensus statement by AUA and SAR. J Urol 196(6): 1613-1618, 2016. PMID: 27320841. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.079
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Wang B,
    2. Gao J,
    3. Zhang Q,
    4. Zhang C,
    5. Liu G,
    6. Wei W,
    7. Huang H,
    8. Fu Y,
    9. Li D,
    10. Zhang B and
    11. Guo H
    : Investigating the equivalent performance of biparametric compared to multiparametric MRI in detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol (NY) 45(2): 547-555, 2020. PMID: 31907568. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-019-02281-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Fütterer JJ
    : Multiparametric MRI in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Korean J Radiol 18(4): 597-606, 2017. PMID: 28670154. DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2017.18.4.597
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Pepe P,
    2. D’Urso D,
    3. Garufi A,
    4. Priolo G,
    5. Pennisi M,
    6. Russo G,
    7. Sabini MG,
    8. Valastro LM,
    9. Galia A and
    10. Fraggetta F
    : Multiparametric MRI apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) accuracy in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer. In Vivo 31(3): 415-418, 2017. PMID: 28438871. DOI: 10.21873/invivo.11075
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Di Campli E,
    2. Delli Pizzi A,
    3. Seccia B,
    4. Cianci R,
    5. d’Annibale M,
    6. Colasante A,
    7. Cinalli S,
    8. Castellan P,
    9. Navarra R,
    10. Iantorno R,
    11. Gabrielli D,
    12. Buffone A,
    13. Caulo M and
    14. Basilico R
    : Diagnostic accuracy of biparametric vs multiparametric MRI in clinically significant prostate cancer: Comparison between readers with different experience. Eur J Radiol 101: 17-23, 2018. PMID: 29571792. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.01.028
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Scialpi M,
    2. Prosperi E,
    3. D’Andrea A,
    4. Martorana E,
    5. Malaspina C,
    6. Palumbo B,
    7. Orlandi A,
    8. Falcone G,
    9. Milizia M,
    10. Mearini L,
    11. Aisa MC,
    12. Scialpi P,
    13. DE Dominicis C,
    14. Bianchi G and
    15. Sidoni A
    : Biparametric versus multiparametric MRI with non-endorectal coil at 3T in the detection and localization of prostate cancer. Anticancer Res 37(3): 1263-1271, 2017. PMID: 28314291. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.11443
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Mussi TC,
    2. Martins T,
    3. Dantas GC,
    4. Garcia RG,
    5. Filippi RZ,
    6. Lemos GC and
    7. Baroni RH
    : Comparison between multiparametric MRI with and without post – contrast sequences for clinically significant prostate cancer detection. Int Braz J Urol 44(6): 1129-1138, 2018. PMID: 30325611. DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2018.0102
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Boesen L,
    2. Nørgaard N,
    3. Løgager V,
    4. Balslev I,
    5. Bisbjerg R,
    6. Thestrup KC,
    7. Jakobsen H and
    8. Thomsen HS
    : Prebiopsy biparametric magnetic resonance imaging combined with prostate-specific antigen density in detecting and ruling out gleason 7-10 prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve men. Eur Urol Oncol 2(3): 311-319, 2019. PMID: 31200846. DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.09.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Lee SJ,
    2. Oh YT,
    3. Jung DC,
    4. Cho NH,
    5. Choi YD and
    6. Park SY
    : Combined analysis of biparametric MRI and prostate-specific antigen density: Role in the prebiopsy diagnosis of gleason score 7 or greater prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 211(3): W166-W172, 2018. PMID: 30016148. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.17.19253
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Han C,
    2. Liu S,
    3. Qin XB,
    4. Ma S,
    5. Zhu LN and
    6. Wang XY
    : MRI combined with PSA density in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in patients with PSA serum levels of 4~10 ng/mL: Biparametric versus multiparametric MRI. Diagn Interv Imaging 101(4): 235-244, 2020. PMID: 32063483. DOI: 10.1016/j.diii.2020.01.014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 41 (4)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 41, Issue 4
April 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Usefulness of Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Combined With Prostate Specific Antigen Density in Pre-biopsy Detection of Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
10 + 2 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Usefulness of Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Combined With Prostate Specific Antigen Density in Pre-biopsy Detection of Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer
SHO SEKITO, TAKASHI TERABE, TAKUJI SHIBAHARA, TAKEHISA ONISHI
Anticancer Research Apr 2021, 41 (4) 2183-2186; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.14992

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Usefulness of Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Combined With Prostate Specific Antigen Density in Pre-biopsy Detection of Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer
SHO SEKITO, TAKASHI TERABE, TAKUJI SHIBAHARA, TAKEHISA ONISHI
Anticancer Research Apr 2021, 41 (4) 2183-2186; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.14992
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Assessment of Prostate Volume and Prostate-specific Antigen Density With the Segmentation Method on Magnetic Resonance Imaging
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Tumor Budding Grade and T Stage as Recurrence Predictors of High-risk Stage II Colorectal Cancer
  • Pathologic Complete Response (pCR) in Patient With Myxofibrosarcoma Who Underwent Neoadjuvant Radiation Concurrent to Complementary and Alternative Medicine
  • Machine Learning Model to Guide Empirical Antimicrobial Therapy in Febrile Neutropenic Patients With Hematologic Malignancies
Show more Clinical Studies

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Biparametric magnetic resonance imaging
  • clinically significant prostate cancer
  • transrectal prostate biopsy
Anticancer Research

© 2025 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire