THE EVOLUTION OF PROSTATE CANCER DIAGNOSIS: FROM PALPATION TO ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: LITERATURE REVIEW
Аннотация
Abstract
Relevance. Being one of the most common types of cancer, prostate cancer requires a specific diagnosticapproach, using modern, highly sensitive and specific diagnostic methods. An analysis of existing methods will allow us to determine the most effective strategies for early detection and control of the disease.
Objective. To summarize existing data on the diagnostic algorithm for prostate cancer, identify the strengths andweaknesses of each of the procedures used, and evaluate the impact and effectiveness of modern diagnostic methods.
Methods and materials. Information was searched and analyzed in Google Scholar, PubMed, Elsevier, Web ofScience, and Medline databases. The review includes data from meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, systematicreviews, and clinical trials. Duplicate articles have been deleted, information verified, and irrelevant works excluded. As aresult, 75 full-text documents and abstracts were selected, providing a comprehensive analysis of the problem under consideration.
Conclusion. Combined approaches increase the accuracy of pancreatic cancer diagnosis. PSMA-PET improvesthe detection of metastases, but remains expensive and difficult to access in developing countries. A liquid biopsy haspotential, but requires improved sensitivity. Transrectal ultrasound remains an important tool, but its diagnostic value is limited. An magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy reveals more clinically significant prostate cancer than a systematic biopsy. Artificial intelligence in diagnostics requires development, but its use should be clearly regulated.
Список литературы
1. World Cancer Research Fund https://www.wcrf.org/preventing-cancer/cancer-statistics/prostate-cancer-statistics/#latest-prostate-cancer-data
2. Chen J., Zhang D., Yan W., Yang D., Shen B. Translational bioinformatics for diagnostic and prognostic prediction of prostate cancer in the next-generation sequencing era // BioMed Research International. – 2013. – Vol. 2013. – P. 901578.
3. Perdana N.R., Mochtar C.A., Umbas R., Hamid A.R. The risk factors of prostate cancer and its prevention: A literature review // Acta Medica Indonesiana. – 2016. – Vol. 48(3). – P. 228–238. PMID: 27840359.
4. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news/item/01-02-2024-global-cancer-burden-growing--amidst-mounting-need-for-services
5. Rebello R.J., Oing C., Knudsen K.E. et al. Prostate cancer // Nature Reviews Disease Primers. – 2021. – Vol. 7. – P. 9. doi: 10.1038/s41572-020-00243-0.
6. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2024. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2024.
7. O’Reilly J.A., O’Kennedy R.J. Prostate Cancer Detection: Complexities and Strategies // Cancer Treatment Journal. – 2017. – Vol. 2. – P. 18–25.
8. Descotes J.L. Diagnosis of prostate cancer // Asian Journal of Urology. – 2019. – Vol. 6(2). – P. 129–136. doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2018.11.007. PMID: 31061798; PMCID: PMC6488713.
9. Bhattacharya I., Khandwala Y.S., Vesal S. et al. A review of artificial intelligence in prostate cancer detection on imaging // Therapeutic Advances in Urology. – 2022. – Vol. 14. – P. 17562872221128791. doi: 10.1177/17562872221128791. PMID: 36249889; PMCID: PMC9554123.
10. Thompson I.M., Pauler D.K., Goodman P.J. et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level of ≤4.0 ng per milliliter // New England Journal of Medicine. – 2004. – Vol. 350. – P. 2239–2246.
11. Shinohara K., Master V.A., Chi T., Carroll P.R. Prostate needle biopsy techniques and interpretation // Genitourinary Oncology. – Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 2006. – P. 111–119.
12. Catalona W.J. History of the discovery and clinical translation of prostate-specific antigen // Asian Journal of Urology. – 2014. – Vol. 1(1).
13. Wilson J.M.G., Jungner G. Principles and practice of screening for disease // Public Health Paper, no. 34. – Geneva: World Health Organization, 1968.
14. Thompson I.M., Ankerst D.P. Prostate-specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer // CMAJ. – 2007. – Vol. 176(13). – P. 1853–1858. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.060955. PMID: 17576986; PMCID: PMC1891131.
15. Пушкарь Д.Ю., Бормотин А.В., Говоров А.В. Алгоритм ранней диагностики рака предстательной железы // МГМСУ им. Н.А. Семашко. URL: https://www.rmj.ru/articles/urologiya/Algoritm_ranney_diagnostiki_raka_predstatelynoy_ghelezy/?utm_source=google.com&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=google.com&utm_referrer=google.com
16. Oesterling JE, Jacobsen SJ, Cooner WH. The use of age- specific reference ranges for serum prostate specific antigen in men 60 years old or older. J Urol 1995;153:1160e3.
17. Van Poppel H., Albreht T., Basu P., Hogenhout R., Collen S., Roobol M. Serum PSA-based early detection of prostate cancer in Europe and globally: past, present and future // Nature Reviews Urology. – 2022. – URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41585-022-00638-6
18. Sandhu G.S., Andriole G.L. Overdiagnosis of prostate cancer // J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. – 2012. – Sept 14. – URL: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3540879/
19. Lopes PM, Sepúlveda L, Ramos R, Sousa P. The role of transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: new contributions. Radiol Bras. 2015 Jan-Feb;48(1):7-11. doi: 10.1590/0100-3984.2013.0010. PMID: 25798001; PMCID: PMC4366021.
20. Ozah E., Imasogie D.E. The diagnostic accuracy of prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination in the diagnosis of prostate cancer at the University of Benin Teaching Hospital // Journal of the West African College of Surgeons. – 2023. – Vol. 13(3). – P. 91–95. doi: 10.4103/jwas.jwas_32_23. URL: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10395850/
21. Abdrabo A.A., Fadlalla A.I., Fadl-Elmula I.M. Significance of serum total prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination in the diagnosis of prostate cancer // Saudi Medical Journal. – 2011. – Vol. 32(11). – P. 1133–1136. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22057600/
22. Yusim I., Krenawi M., Mazor E. et al. The use of prostate-specific antigen density to predict clinically significant prostate cancer // Scientific Reports. – 2020. – Vol. 10(1). – P. 20015. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-76786-9. PMID: 33203873; PMCID: PMC7672084.
23. Youn S.Y., Choi M.H., Lee Y.J. et al. Prostate gland volume estimation: anteroposterior diameters measured on axial versus sagittal ultrasonography and magnetic resonance images // Ultrasonography. – 2023. – Vol. 42(1). – P. 154–164. doi: 10.14366/usg.22104. PMID: 36475357; PMCID: PMC9816709.
24. Wang S., Kozarek J., Russell R. et al. Diagnostic performance of prostate-specific antigen density for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in the era of magnetic resonance imaging: A systematic review and meta-analysis // European Urology Oncology. – 2024. – Vol. 7(2). – P. 189–203. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.08.002.
25. Teoh M.M., Nyandoro M.G., Jacob A., Cooke D. Digital rectal examination: a missed opportunity with fatal consequences // ANZ Journal of Surgery. – 2023. – Vol. 93. – P. 775–776. doi: 10.1111/ans.18025.
26. Hodge K.K., McNeal J.E., Terris M.K., Stamey T.A. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate // Journal of Urology. – 1989. – Vol. 142(1). – P. 71–74. discussion P. 74–75.
27. Norberg M., Egevad L., Holmberg L., Sparén P., Norlén B.J., Busch C. The sextant protocol for ultrasound-guided core biopsies of the prostate underestimates the presence of cancer // Urology. – 1997. – Vol. 50(4). – P. 562–566.
28. Gravestock P., Shaw M., Veeratterapillay R., Heer R. Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Biopsy Approaches // Urologic Cancers. – Brisbane: Exon Publications, 2022. – ISBN: 978-0-6453320-5-6.
29. Chopra S., Foltz W.D., Milosevic M.F. et al. Comparing oxygen-sensitive MRI (BOLD R2*) with oxygen electrode measurements: A pilot study in men with prostate cancer // International Journal of Radiation Biology. – 2009. – Vol. 85. – P. 805–813.
30. Rzhevskiy A.S., Kapitannikova A.Y., Vasilescu S.A. et al. Isolation of circulating tumor cells from seminal fluid of patients with prostate cancer using inertial microfluidics // Cancers (Basel). – 2022. – Vol. 14(14). – P. 3364. doi: 10.3390/cancers14143364. PMID: 35884424; PMCID: PMC9318520.
31. Alahdal M., Perera R.A., Moschovas M.C., Patel V., Perera R.J. Current advances of liquid biopsies in prostate cancer: Molecular biomarkers // Molecular Therapy Oncolytics. – 2023. – Vol. 30. – P. 27–38. doi: 10.1016/j.omto.2023.07.004. PMID: 37575217; PMCID: PMC10415624.
32. Rzhevskiy A.S., Kapitannikova A.Y., Vasilescu S.A. et al. Isolation of circulating tumor cells from seminal fluid of patients with prostate cancer using inertial microfluidics // Cancers (Basel). – 2022. – Vol. 14(14). – P. 3364. doi: 10.3390/cancers14143364. PMID: 35884424; PMCID: PMC9318520.
33. Zhen L., Liu X., Yegang C. et al. Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis // BMC Cancer. – 2019. – Vol. 19. – P. 1244. doi: 10.1186/s12885-019-6434-9.
34. Martins M., Regusci S., Rohner S. et al. The diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI for detection and localization of prostate cancer depends on the affected region // BJUI Compass. – 2021. – Vol. 2(3). – P. 178–187.
35. McNeal J.E. The zonal anatomy of the prostate // The Prostate. – 1981. – Vol. 2. – P. 35–49.
36. Ahmed H.U., Bosaily A.E., Brown L.C. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study // The Lancet. – 2017. – Vol. 389(10071). – P. 815–822.
37. Kasivisvanathan V., Rannikko A.S., Borghi M. et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis // New England Journal of Medicine. – 2018. – Vol. 378(19). – P. 1767–1777.
38. Schieda N., Nisha Y., Hadziomerovic A.R. et al. Comparison of positive predictive values of biparametric MRI and multiparametric MRI–directed transrectal US–guided targeted prostate biopsy // Radiology. – 2024. – Vol. 311(3).
39. Abramson M., DeMasi M., Zhu D. et al. Biparametric versus multiparametric MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in a diverse, multiethnic population // Abdominal Radiology. – 2024. – Vol. 49. – P. 2491–2498. doi: 10.1007/s00261-024-04332-6.
40. Gevorkyan A.R., Molodtsov M.S., Aleksandrov E.V. Prostate cancer diagnosis as part of high-tech advanced outpatient medical care // Urology Herald. – 2023. – Vol. 11(1). – P. 26–33. (In Russ.) doi: 10.21886/2308-6424-2023-11-1-26-33.
41. Standard Operating Procedure for Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis, Staging and Management of Prostate Cancer // American Urological Association.
42. Turkbey B., Rosenkrantz A.B., Haider M.A. et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 // European Urology. – 2019. – Vol. 76(3). – P. 340–351. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033. PMID: 30898406.
43. Önder Ö., Ayva M., Yaraşır Y. et al. Long-term follow-up results of multiparametric prostate MRI and the prognostic value of PI-RADS: a single-center retrospective cohort study // Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology. – 2024. – Vol. 30(3). – P. 139–151. doi: 10.4274/dir.2023.232414. PMID: 37724756; PMCID: PMC11095067.
44. Kim J.Y., Kim S.H., Kim Y.H., Lee H.J., Kim M.J., Choi M.S. Low-risk prostate cancer: the accuracy of multiparametric MR imaging for detection // Radiology. – 2014. – Vol. 271(2). – P. 435–444.
45. Lopes P.M., Sepúlveda L., Ramos R., Sousa P. The role of transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: new contributions // Radiologia Brasileira. – 2015. – Jan-Feb. – Vol. 48(1). – P. 7–11.
46. Moe A., Hayne D. Transrectal ultrasound biopsy of the prostate: does it still have a role in prostate cancer diagnosis? // Translational Andrology and Urology. – 2020. – Vol. 9(6). – P. 3017–3025.
47. Vesal S., Bhattacharya I., Jahanandish H. et al. ProsDectNet: Bridging the gap in prostate cancer detection via transrectal B-mode ultrasound imaging // arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.05334. – 2023.
48. Chen F.K., de Castro Abreu A.L., Palmer S.L. Utility of ultrasound in the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of prostate cancer: state of the art // Journal of Nuclear Medicine. – 2016. – Vol. 57(Suppl 3). – P. 13S–18S.
49. Leen E., Averkiou M., Arditi M. et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound assessment of the vascular effects of novel therapeutics in early-stage trials // European Radiology. – 2012. – Vol. 22. – P. 1442–1450.
50. Зуков Р.А., Вязьмин В.В., Чанчикова Н.Г. Диагностические возможности ПЭТ/КТ с 18F-ПСМА у пациентов с подозрением на рак предстательной железы // Эффективная фармакотерапия. – 2022. – Том 18. – №13. – Онкология, гематология и радиология.
51. Jansen B.H.E., van Leeuwen P.J., Wondergem M. et al. Detection of recurrent prostate cancer using prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in patients not meeting the Phoenix criteria for biochemical recurrence after curative radiotherapy // European Urology Oncology. – 2021. – Vol. 4(5). – P. 821–825. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2020.01.002. PMID: 32088155.
52. Cornford P., van den Bergh R.C.N., Briers E. et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part II: Treatment of Relapsing, Metastatic, and Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer // European Urology. – 2017. – Vol. 71(4). – P. 630–642.
53. Koo P.J., Petrylak D. Novel imaging strategies for prostate cancer // Future Oncology. – 2021. – Vol. 17(27). – P. 3545–3548. doi: 10.2217/fon-2021-0629.
54. Crawford E.D., Koo P.J., Shore N. et al. A clinician’s guide to next-generation imaging in patients with advanced prostate cancer (RADAR III) // Journal of Urology. – 2019. – Vol. 201(4). – P. 682–692.
55. Ghai S., Haider M.A. Multiparametric-MRI in diagnosis of prostate cancer // Indian Journal of Urology. – 2015. – Vol. 31(3). – P. 194–201. doi: 10.4103/0970-1591.159606.
56. Evangelista L., Zattoni F., Cassarino G. et al. PET/MRI in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis // European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. – 2021. – Vol. 48(3). – P. 859–873. doi: 10.1007/s00259-020-05025-0.
57. Jannusch K., Bruckmann N.M., Morawitz J. et al. Recurrent prostate cancer: combined role for MRI and PSMA-PET in 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/MRI // European Radiology. – 2024. – Vol. 34(7). – P. 4789–4800. doi: 10.1007/s00330-023-10442-4. PMID: 38038758; PMCID: PMC11213774.
58. Liu F.Y., Sheng T.W., Tseng J.R. et al. Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) fusion imaging in prostate cancer: PET-CT vs PET-MRI // British Journal of Radiology. – 2022. – Vol. 95(1131). – P. 20210728. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20210728.
59. Gammel M.C.M., Solari E.L., Eiber M. et al. A clinical role of PET-MRI in prostate cancer? // Seminars in Nuclear Medicine. – 2024. – Vol. 54(1). – P. 132–140. doi: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2023.08.001.
60. Alarcón-Zendejas A.P., Scavuzzo A., Jiménez-Ríos M.A. et al. The promising role of new molecular biomarkers in prostate cancer: From coding and non-coding genes to artificial intelligence approaches // Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases. – 2022. – Vol. 25. – P. 431–443. doi: 10.1038/s41391-022-00537-2.
61. Porzycki P., Ciszkowicz E. Modern biomarkers in prostate cancer diagnosis // Central European Journal of Urology. – 2020. – Vol. 73(3). – P. 300–306. doi: 10.5173/ceju.2020.0067R.
62. Jansen F.H., van Schaik R.H., Kurstjens J. et al. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) isoform p2PSA in combination with total PSA and free PSA improves diagnostic accuracy in prostate cancer detection // European Urology. – 2010. – Vol. 57. – P. 921–927.
63. Loeb S., Sanda M.G., Broyles D.L. et al. The Prostate Health Index selectively identifies clinically significant prostate cancer // Journal of Urology. – 2015. – Vol. 193. – P. 1163–1169. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.10.121.
64. Agbetuyi-Tayo P., Gbadebo M., Rotimi O.A., Rotimi S.O. Advancements in biomarkers of prostate cancer: A review // Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment. – 2024. – Vol. 23. doi: 10.1177/15330338241290029.
65. Talley N. The Gastrointestinal Examination // Chatswood, N.S.W: Elsevier B.V., 2022. – Talley & O'Connor's Clinical Examination: A Systematic Guide to Physical Diagnosis. – P. 235–278.
66. Pfister R., de Bruin E.D., Sterrenburg M.D. et al. Manual muscle testing and hand-held dynamometry in people with inflammatory myopathy: An intra- and interrater reliability and validity study // PLoS One. – 2018. – Vol. 13(3). – P. e0194531. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194531.
67. Chen J.-Y., Wang P.-Y., Liu M.-Z. et al. Biomarkers for prostate cancer: From diagnosis to treatment // Diagnostics. – 2023. – Vol. 13. – P. 3350. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13213350.
68. Klein E.A., Partin A., Lotan Y. et al. Clinical validation of IsoPSA, a single parameter, structure-focused assay for improved detection of prostate cancer: A prospective, multicenter study // Urologic Oncology. – 2022. – Vol. 40(9). – P. 408.e9–408.e18. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2022.06.002.
69. Kennedy A., Hafron J. Incorporation of IsoPSA into clinical practice in the management of elevated prostate-specific antigen based on current guidelines // Reviews in Urology. – 2024. – Vol. 23(3). – P. e63–e70.
70. Chang E.K., Gadzinski A.J., Nyame Y.A. Blood and urine biomarkers in prostate cancer: Are we ready for reflex testing in men with an elevated prostate-specific antigen? // Asian Journal of Urology. – 2021. – Vol. 8. – P. 343–353.
71. Agbetuyi-Tayo P., Gbadebo M., Rotimi O.A., Rotimi S.O. Advancements in biomarkers of prostate cancer: A review // Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment. – 2024. – Vol. 23. doi: 10.1177/15330338241290029.
72. Alarcón-Zendejas A.P., Scavuzzo A., Jiménez-Ríos M.A. et al. The promising role of new molecular biomarkers in prostate cancer: From coding and non-coding genes to artificial intelligence approaches // Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases. – 2022. – Vol. 25. – P. 431–443. doi: 10.1038/s41391-022-00537-2.
73. UCLA Biomedical AI Research Lab // 28 february 2025 URL: https://bair.seas.ucla.edu.
74. Pellicer-Valero O.J., Marenco Jiménez J.L., Gonzalez-Perez V. et al. Deep Learning for fully automatic detection, segmentation, and Gleason Grade estimation of prostate cancer in multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Images // [arXiv preprint]. – 2021. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2103.12650.
75. Grubmüller B., Baltzer P., Hartenbach S. et al. PSMA Ligand PET/MRI for Primary Prostate Cancer: Staging Performance and Clinical Impact // Clinical Cancer Research. – 2018. – Vol. 24(24). – P. 6300–6307. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-0768. PMID: 30139879.
Рецензия
Для цитирования:
. Актуальные проблемы теоретической и клинической медицины. 2025;(2):143.
For citation:
Андреева К.А. THE EVOLUTION OF PROSTATE CANCER DIAGNOSIS: FROM PALPATION TO ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: LITERATURE REVIEW. Actual Problems of Theoretical and Clinical Medicine. 2025;(2):143.
