Эволюция диагностики рака предстательной железы: от пальпации до искусственного интеллекта

Являясь одним из наиболее распространенных видов рака, рак предстательной железы требует к себе определенный диагностический подход, с применением современных, высокочувствительных и специфичных методов диагностики. Анализ существующих методов позволит определить наиболее эффективные стратегии для раннего выявления и контроля заболевания.

Цель исследования. Обобщение существующих данных о диагностическом алгоритме при раке предстательной железы, выявление сильных и слабых сторон каждой из применяемых процедур, оценить влияние и эффективность современных методов диагностики.

Методы и материалы. Проведен поиск и анализ информации в базах данных Google Scholar, PubMed, Elsevier, Web of Science и Medline. В обзор включены данные метаанализов, рандомизированных контролируемых исследований, систематических обзоров и клинических испытаний. Дубликаты статей были удалены, информация проверена, а нерелевантные работы исключены. В результате отобрано 75 полнотекстовых документов и абстрактов, обеспечивающих всесторонний анализ рассматриваемой проблемы.

Выводы. Комбинированные подходы повышают точность диагностики рака поджелудочной железы. PSMA-ПЭТ улучшает выявление метастазов, но остается дорогостоящим и труднодоступным в развивающихся странах. Жидкостная биопсия имеет потенциал, но требует улучшения чувствительности. Трансректальное ультразвуковое исследование остается важным инструментом, но его диагностическая ценность ограничена. Магнито-резонансная таргетная биопсия выявляет больше клинически значимого рака, чем систематическая биопсия. Искусственный интеллект в диагностике требует развития, но его применение должно быть четко регламентировано.

1. World Cancer Research Fund. Prostate cancer statistics [Electronic source] // World Cancer Research Fund. – 2022. – URL: https://www.wcrf.org/preventing-cancer/cancer-statistics/prostate-cancer-statistics/#latestprostate-cancer-data (Accessed: 04.12.2024).

2. Chen J., Zhang D., Yan W., Yang D., Shen B. Translational bioinformatics for diagnostic and prognostic prediction of prostate cancer in the nextgeneration sequencing era // BioMed Research International. – 2013. – Vol. 2013. – Article No. 901578. – DOI: 10.1155/2013/901578.

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.

4. The global cancer burden is growing amid a mounting need for services. [Electronic source] // World Health Organization [Website]. – 2024. – URL: https://www.who.int/news/item/01-02-2024-global-cancer-burden-growing--amidst-mounting-need-for-services (Accessed: 04.12.2024).

5. Rebello R. J., Oing C., Knudsen K. E., et al. Prostate cancer // Nature Reviews Disease Primers. – 2021. – Vol. 7. – Article No. 9. – DOI: 10.1038/s41572-020-00243-0.

6. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2024. – Atlanta: American Cancer Society, 2024. – 76 p.

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.

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. – Article No. 17562872221128791. – DOI: 10.1177/17562872221128791.

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). – P. 12-14.

13. Wilson J. M. G., Jungner G. Principles and practice of screening for disease. – Geneva: World Health Organization, 1968. – (Public Health Paper; no. 34). – 164 p.

14. Thompson I. M., Ankerst D. P. Prostate-specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer // Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ). – 2007. – Vol. 176(13). – P. 1853-1858. – DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.060955.

15. Пушкарь Д. Ю., Бормотин А. В., Говоров А. В. Алгоритм ранней диагностики рака предстательной железы [Электронный ресурс] // МГМСУ им. Н. А. Семашко [Web-сайт]. – URL: https://www.rmj.ru/articles/urologiya/Algoritm_ranney_diagnostiki_raka_predstatelynoy_ghelezy/ (Accessed: 06.12.2024).

16. Oesterling J. E., Jacobsen S. J., Cooner W. H. The use of age-specific reference ranges for serum prostate-specific antigen in men 60 years old or older // Journal of Urology. – 1995. – Vol. 153. – P. 1160-1163.

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 [Electronic source] // Nature Reviews Urology [Website]. – 2022. – URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41585-022-00638-6 (Accessed: 07.12.2024).

18. Sandhu G. S., Andriole G. L. Overdiagnosis of prostate cancer [Electronic source]// Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs [Website]. – 2012. – URL: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3540879/ (Accessed: 07.12.2024).

19. 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. – Vol. 48(1). – P. 7-11. – DOI: 10.1590/0100-3984.2013.0010.

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/ (Accessed: 20.06.2025).

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.

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). – Article 20015. – DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-76786-9.

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.

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 direct- ed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate // Journal of Urology. – 1989. – Vol. 142(1). – P. 71-74.

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. – Bookshelf ID: NBK585968. – DOI: 10.36255/exon-publications-urologic-cancers-prostate-cancer-biopsy.

29. Hansen N.L., Barrett T., Lloyd T., Warren A., Samel C., Bratt O., Kastner C. Optimising the number of cores for magnetic resonance imaging-guided targeted and systematic transperineal prostate biopsy // BJU International. – 2020. – Vol. 125(2). – P. 260-269. – DOI: 10.1111/bju.14865.

30. 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.

31. 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). – Article No. 3364. – DOI: 10.3390/cancers14143364.

32. 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.

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. – Article No. 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 multiparametric 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). – Article No. 231383. – DOI: 10.1148/radiol.231383.

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. Геворкян А. Р., Молодцов М. С., Александров Е. В. Диагностика рака предстательной железы в рамках высокотехнологичной специализированной поликлинической медицинской помощи // Вестник урологии. – 2023. – Vol. 11. – № 1. – P. 26-33. – 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 [Electronic source] // American Urological Association [Website]. – URL: https://www.auanet.org (Accessed: 14.01.2025).

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.

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 singlecenter retrospective cohort study // Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology. – 2024. – Vol. 30(3). – P. 139-151. – DOI: 10.4274/dir.2023.232414.

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. – 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 [Electronic source] // arXiv [Website]. – 2023. – URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.05334 (Accessed: 15.01.2025).

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. 13-18.

49. Зуков Р. А., Вязьмин В. В., Чанчикова Н. Г. Диагностические возможности ПЭТ/КТ с 18F-PSMA у пациентов с подозрением на рак предстательной железы // Эффективная фармакотерапия. – 2022. – Т. 18. – № 13. – С. 6-10.

50. 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

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.

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/fon2021-0629.

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. Calais J., Ceci F., Eiber M., Hope T.A., Hofman M.S., Rischpler C., Bach-Gansmo T., Nanni C., Savir-Baruch B., Elashoff D., Grogan T., Dahlbom M., Slavik R., Gartmann J., Nguyen K., Lok V., Jadvar H., Kishan A.U., Rettig M.B., Reiter R.E., Fendler W.P., Czernin J. 18F-fluciclovine PET-CT and 68GaPSMA-11 PET-CT in patients with early biochemical recurrence after prostatectomy: a prospective, single-centre, single-arm, comparative imaging trial // Lancet Oncology. – 2019. – Vol. 20(9). – P. 1286- 1294. – DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30415-2. – Erratum: Lancet Oncol. – 2019. – Vol. 20(11). – P. 613; – 2020. Vol. 21(6). – P. 304.

56. 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.

57. 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.

58. 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.

59. 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). – Article No. 20210728. – DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20210728.

60. 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.

61. Alarcón-Zendejas A. P., Scavuzzo A., JiménezRíos 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.

62. 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.

63. 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.

64. 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.

65. 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.

66. Talley N., O’Connor S. The Gastrointestinal Examination // Talley & O’Connor’s Clinical Examination: A Systematic Guide to Physical Diagnosis. – 2022. – Vol. 1. – P. 235-278.

67. 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). – Article No. 0194531. – DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194531.

68. Chen J.-Y., Wang P.-Y., Liu M.-Z., et al. Biomarkers for prostate cancer: From diagnosis to treatment // Diagnostics. – 2023. – Vol. 13. – Article No. 3350. – DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13213350.

69. Scovell J. M., Carroll P. R., Klein E. A., Nguyen H. G., Jones J. S. IsoPSA® reduces provider recommendations for biopsy and magnetic resonance imaging in men with total prostate specific antigen ≥ 4 ng/ml: A real world observational clinical utility study // Urology Practice. – 2022. – Vol. 9, № 2. – P. 173-180. – DOI: 10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000291.

70. Klein E. A., Partin A., Lotan Y., et al. Clinical validation of IsoPSA, a single parameter, structurefocused 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.

71. 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. 63-70.

72. 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.

73. 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.

74. Alarcón-Zendejas A. P., Scavuzzo A., JiménezRíos 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.

75. AI Tool detects prostate cancer more accurately than doctors, UCLA study // UCLA Biomedical AI Research Lab [Website]. – 2025. – URL: https://bair.seas.ucla.edu (Accessed: 22.01.2025).

76. 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. – 2022. – DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2103.12650.