Magnetic resonance/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy of the prostate compared to systematic 12-core biopsy for the diagnosis and characterization of prostate cancer: multi-institutional retrospective analysis of 389 patients

How Many Cores Should Be Collected per Region of Interest in Fusion Targeted Prostate Biopsy? A Retrospective Single Institution Statistical Simulation

OBJECTIVE

To determine how many cores should be collected per region of interest (ROI) in magnetic resonance imaging-guided fusion prostate biopsy. Magnetic resonance imaging-guided targeted prostate biopsy has led to improved detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC); however, data is limited regarding the optimal number of biopsy cores that should be taken. An ideal number of cores maximizes clinically significant cancer detection while minimizing cost, discomfort, and procedure time.

METHODS

Patients receiving targeted prostate biopsy (4 cores per ROI) combined with systematic 12-core prostate at our institution between January 2017 and June 2022 were retrospectively identified. Statistical simulation was used to model scenarios in which 1, 2, 3, or 4 cores were taken from the ROI, and the rate of grade group ≥2 prostate cancer (csPC) detection was determined for targeted and combined targeted plus systematic biopsy.

RESULTS

483 patients were identified. Transrectal (96%) and transperineal (4%) biopsies were included. For targeted biopsy, csPC was present in 21% (1 core), 26% (2 cores; P = .048), 29% (3 cores; P = .002), and 31% (4 cores; P < .001) of cases. For combined biopsy, csPC was present in 33% (1 core), 35% (2 cores; P = .4), 37% (3 cores; P = .2), and 38% (4 cores; P = .12) of cases.

CONCLUSION

If targeted biopsy is performed without systematic biopsy, 2 or more cores is superior to 1 core for detecting csPC. This effect is mitigated when targeted and systematic biopsy are combined.

Direct comparison between Grade Group assessed on systematic and MRI/ultrasound fusion targeted biopsies correlated to the radical prostatectomy specimens in patients with prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

To compare the correlation of Gleason score (GS) and ISUP grade determined by prostate biopsies (PBx) and radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens according to the biopsy technique: ultrasound randomised (RBx) vs. MRI/ultrasound fusion targeted (TBx).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between March 2013 and June 2018, we retrospectively included patients who underwent RP for prostate cancer (PCa) histopathologically proven by RBx and/or TBx. All patients had a prebiopsy MRI by a single radiologist (using PI-RADS score), then transrectal RBx (12cores, blinded to MRI lesions) and TBx (2-4 cores/target) with elastic MRI/ultrasound fusion (UroStation™, Koelis, Grenoble, France). Histological findings were compared: PBx vs. RP.

RESULTS

One hundred and four patients underwent RP after RBx and/or TBx. ISUP concordance rate was better with the association RBx+TBx 49% (51/104) vs. 43.3% with TBx (P=0.07) and 43.3% with RBx (P=0.13). With RBx, 50% of the patients were downgraded (52/104) against 42.3% (44/104) with TBx (P=0.088). The association RBx+TBx significantly decreased the rate of downgrading of the ISUP score compared to the ISUP score of RP 35.6% (37/104) vs. RBx (50%, P=0.0001) and vs. TBx (42.3%, P=0.016).

CONCLUSION

In half of cases, the ISUP score was underestimated in RBx compared to RP specimens. Adding TBx to RBx significantly reduced downgrading. The combination of both biopsy techniques appeared to be the best protocol to get closer to ISUP score and GS of the RP specimens.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

C.

MRI/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Targeted Biopsy and Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Systematic Biopsy for Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Purpose

For men suspected of having prostate cancer (PCa), the transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided systematic biopsy (SB) was performed. MRI/TRUS fusion guided-targeted biopsy (MRI-TB) could enhance PCa detection, allowing sampling of sites at higher risk which were not obvious with TRUS alone. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the detection rates of prostate cancer by MRI-TB or MRI-TB plus SB versus SB, mainly for diagnosis of high-risk PCa.

Methods

A literature Search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. We searched from inception of the databases up to January 2021.

Results

A total of 5831 patients from 26 studies were included in the present meta-analysis. Compared to traditional TRUS-guided biopsy, MRI-TB had a significantly higher detection rate of clinically significant PCa (RR=1.27; 95%CI 1.15-1.40; p<0.001) and high-risk PCa (RR=1.41; 95% CI 1.22-1.64; p<0.001), while the detection rate of clinically insignificant PCa was lower (RR=0.65; 95%CI 0.55-0.77; p<0.001). MRI-TB and SB did not significantly differ in the detection of overall prostate cancer (RR=1.04; 95%CI 0.95-1.12; p=0.41). Compared with SB alone, we found that MRI-TB plus SB diagnosed more cases of overall, clinically significant and high-risk PCa (p<0.001).

Conclusion

Compared with systematic protocols, MRI-TB detects more clinically significant and high-risk PCa cases, and fewer clinically insignificant PCa cases. MRI-TB combined with SB enhances PCa detection in contrast with either alone but did not reduce the diagnosis rate of clinically insignificant PCa.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#searchadvanced, CRD42021218475.

Evidence-based guideline recommendations on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer: A Cancer Care Ontario updated clinical practice guideline

INTRODUCTION

This clinical practice guideline is based on a systematic review to assess the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) for biopsy-naive men and men with a prior negative transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy (TRUS-SB) at elevated risk.

METHODS

The methods of the clinical practice guideline included searches to September of 2020 of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Internal and external reviews were conducted.

RESULTS

The recommendations are:Recommendation 1: For biopsy-naive patients at elevated risk of csPCa, mpMRI is recommended prior to biopsy in patients who are candidates for curative management with suspected clinically localized prostate cancer.- If the mpMRI is positive, mpMRI-targeted biopsy (TB) and TRUS-SB should be performed together to maximize detection of csPCa.- If the mpMRI is negative, consider forgoing any biopsy after discussion of the risks and benefits with the patient as part of shared decision-making and ongoing followup.Recommendation 2: In patients who had a prior negative TRUS-SB and demonstrate a high risk of having csPCa in whom curative management is being considered:- mpMRI should be performed.- If the mpMRI is positive, targeted biopsy should be performed. Concomitant TRUS-SB can be considered depending on the patient's risk profile and time since prior TRUS-SB biopsy.- If the mpMRI is negative, consider forgoing a TRUS-SB only after discussion of the risks and benefits with the patient as part of shared decision-making and ongoing followup.Recommendation 3: mpMRI should be performed and interpreted in compliance with the current Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS) guidelines.

Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy techniques compared to transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Multiparametric MRI localizes cancer in the prostate, allowing for MRI guided biopsy (MRI-GB) 43 alongside transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy (TRUS-GB). Three MRI-GB approaches exist; visual estimation (COG-TB); fusion software-assisted (FUS-TB) and MRI ‘in-bore’ biopsy (IB-TB). It is unknown whether any of these are superior.

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to address three questions. First, whether MRI-GB is superior to TRUS-GB at detecting clinically significant PCa (csPCa). Second, whether MRI-GB is superior to TRUS-GB at avoiding detection of insignificant PCa. Third, whether any MRI-GB strategy is superior at detecting csPCa.

Methods

A systematic literature review from 2015 to 2019 was performed in accordance with the START recommendations. Studies reporting PCa detection rates, employing MRI-GB and TRUS-GB were included and evaluated using the QUADAS-2 checklist. 1553 studies were found, of which 43 were included in the meta-analysis.

Results

For csPCa, MRI-GB was superior in detection to TRUS-GB (0.83 vs. 0.63 [p = 0.02]). MRI-GB was superior in detection to TRUS-GB at avoiding detection of insignificant PCa. No MRI-GB technique was superior at detecting csPCa (IB-TB 0.87; COG TB 0.81; FUS-TB 0.81, [p = 0.55]). There was significant heterogeneity observed between the included studies.

Conclusions

In patients with suspected PCa on MRI, MRI-GB offers superior rates of csPCa detection and reduces detection of insignificant PCa compared to TRUS-GB. No individual MRI-GB technique was found to be better in csPCa detection. Prospective adequately powered randomized controlled trials are required.

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: an Updated Systematic Review

There has been growing utilisation of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MPMRI) as a non-invasive tool to diagnose and localise clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa). This updated systematic review examines the use of MPMRI in patients with an elevated risk of CSPCa who have had a prior negative transrectal ultrasound systematic biopsy (TRUS-SB) and who were biopsy naïve. MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for existing systematic reviews published up to September 2020. The literature search of the electronic databases combined disease-specific terms (prostate cancer, prostate carcinoma, etc.) and treatment-specific terms (magnetic resonance, etc.). Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MPMRI to template transperineal mapping biopsy (TPMB) or to TRUS-SB. Thirty-six RCTs were eligible. For biopsy-naïve men, accuracy of diagnosis of CSPCa showed sensitivities from 87 to 96% and specificities ranging from 29 to 45%. Meta-analyses for CSPCa showed increased detection favouring MPMRI-targeted biopsy over TRUS-SB by 3% (95% confidence interval 0-7%, P = 0.03) and decreased detection of clinically insignificant prostate cancer (CISPCa) favouring MPMRI by 8% (95% confidence interval -11 to 5%, P < 0.00001). Accuracy of MPMRI for men with prior negative biopsy showed sensitivities of 78-100% and specificities of 30-100%. Meta-analyses comparing MPMRI to TRUS-SB showed increased detection of 5% (95% confidence interval 3-7%, P < 0.0001) with a reduction of CISPCa detection of 7% (95% confidence interval 4-9%, P < 0.00001). The growing acceptance of MPMRI utilisation internationally and the recent publication of several RCTs regarding MPMRI in reducing CISPCa detection rates, particularly in biopsy-naïve men, without loss of sensitivity for CSPCa necessitates the synthesis of updated evidence examining MPMRI in the diagnosis of CSPCa.

Effect of lesion diameter and prostate volume on prostate cancer detection rate of magnetic resonance imaging: Transrectal-ultrasonography-guided fusion biopsies using cognitive targeting

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of prostate volume and lesion size on the clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection rates of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsies, performed by a cognitive targeting method for sampling peripheral zone lesions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled 219 consecutive patients, who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with a 3-T scanner and had peripheral zone lesions suspected for prostate cancer. All of these patients underwent combined cognitive targeted biopsy of suspicious lesions and TRUS-guided systematic biopsy. The detection rates of csPCa according to different lesion diameters (<5 mm, 5-9.9 mm, and ≥10 mm) and prostate volumes (<30 mL, 30-49.9 mL, 50-79.9 mL, and ≥80 mL) were calculated per lesion basis. In addition, subgroup analysis of csPCa detection rates was performed according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System scores of lesions.

RESULTS

The csPCa detection rates according to lesion diameters <5 mm, 5-9.9 mm, and ≥10 mm were 4%, 9.8%, and 33.1%, respectively, and were significantly lower for lesions <10 mm (p<0.001). The csPCa detection rates were 61.5%, 24.1%, 16.2%, and 6.9%, respectively, for prostate volumes <30 mL, 30-49.9 mL, 50-79.9 mL, and ≥80 mL, and were significantly higher for prostate volumes <30 mL (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians should be very careful when they prefer cognitive targeted prostatic biopsy in patients with periferal zone lesions less than 10 mm and with prostate volumes greater than 30 mL, because of significantly low csPCa detection rates.

mpMRI-targeted biopsy versus systematic biopsy for clinically significant prostate cancer diagnosis: a systematic review and metaanalysis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We aimed to compare the accuracy of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) diagnosis by magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy (MRI-TB) versus systematic biopsy (SB) in men suspected of having prostate cancer (PCa).

RECENT FINDINGS

In biopsy-naïve patients, MRI-TB was more accurate to identify csPCa than SB. However, when comparing specifically MRI-TB versus transperineal (SB), we did not find any difference. Furthermore, in a repeat biopsy scenario, MRI-TB found more csPCa than SB as well. Finally, postanalysis comparing combined biopsy (SB plus MRI-TB) suggests that the later alone may play a role in both scenarios for identifying csPCa.

SUMMARY

MRI-TB found more csPCa than SB in patients with suspected PCa in both scenarios, naïve and repeat biopsies, but more studies comparing those methods are warranted before any recommendation on this topic.

WITHDRAWN: The Changes of ADC Value, DCE-MRI Parameters and Their Influence on Neuropsychology in Prostate Cancer Patients after Endocrine Therapy Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging

This article has been withdrawn at the request of the Editor-in-Chief. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy Versus Systematic Biopsy in the Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted prostate biopsy (MRI-TB) may be an alternative to systematic biopsy for diagnosing prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

The primary aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to compare the detection rates of clinically significant and clinically insignificant cancer by MRI-TB with those by systematic biopsy in men undergoing prostate biopsy to identify prostate cancer.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases. We included prospective and retrospective paired studies where the index test was MRI-TB and the comparator test was systematic biopsy. We also included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) if one arm included MRI-TB and another arm included systematic biopsy. The risk of bias was assessed using a modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 checklist. In addition, the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool was used for RCTs.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We included 68 studies with a paired design and eight RCTs, comprising a total of 14709 men who either received both MRI-TB and systematic biopsy, or were randomised to receive one of the tests. MRI-TB detected more men with clinically significant cancer than systematic biopsy (detection ratio [DR] 1.16 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.09-1.24], p<0.0001) and fewer men with clinically insignificant cancer than systematic biopsy (DR 0.66 [95% CI 0.57-0.76], p<0.0001). The proportion of cores positive for cancer was greater for MRI-TB than for systematic biopsy (relative risk 3.17 [95% CI 2.82-3.56], p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

MRI-TB is an attractive alternative diagnostic strategy to systematic biopsy.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We evaluated the published literature, comparing two methods of diagnosing prostate cancer. We found that biopsies targeted to suspicious areas on magnetic resonance imaging were better at detecting prostate cancer that needs to be treated and avoiding the diagnosis of disease that does not need treatment than the traditional systematic biopsy.

Targeted biopsy: benefits and limitations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the current literature regarding the role of multiparametric MRI and fusion-guided biopsies in urologic practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

Fusion biopsies consistently show an increase in the detection of clinically significant cancers and decrease in low-risk disease that may be more suitable for active surveillance. Although, when to incorporate multiparametric MRI into workup is not clearly agreed upon, studies have shown a clear benefit in both biopsy naïve and those with prior negative biopsies in determining the appropriate treatment strategy. More recently, cost-analysis models have been published that show that upfront MRIs are more cost-effective when considering missed cancers and treatment courses.

SUMMARY

With improved accuracy over systematic biopsies, fusion biopsies are a superior method for detection of the true grade of cancer for both biopsy naïve and patients with prior negative biopsies, choosing appropriate candidates for active surveillance, and monitoring progression on active surveillance.

Who Can Avoid Systematic Biopsy Without Missing Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Men Who Undergo Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Biopsy?

BACKGROUND

The objective of the study was to identify a subset of men who can avoid systematic multisite biopsy (SyB) among those undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted transperineal 4-core biopsy (TgB) without missing clinically significant cancer (SC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From April 2013 to December 2017, 304 men with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels (< 20 ng/mL) or abnormal digital rectal examination and positive MRI findings underwent transrecta ultrasound and MRI-targeted transperineal 4-core with 14-core systematic biopsy. MRI findings were prospectively collected and evaluated using Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS), and scores ≥3 were considered positive. SC was defined as Gleason score ≥3 + 4 or maximum cancer length ≥5 mm. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of TgB and SyB to detect SC and characterized men who could avoid SyB without missing SC.

RESULTS

Detection rates of any cancer and SC for TgB/SyB/their combination were 59%/63%/68% and 51%/52%/61%, respectively. TgB alone missed 14% (29/207) of any cancer and 16% (29/184) of SC detected using TgB with SyB. In uni- and multivariable analyses, PI-RADS scores of 3 to 4 were independent predictors for missing SC using TgB alone. When restricted to 81 men with PI-RADS scores of 5 (27%), SC was missed using TgB alone only in 3 (4.6% vs. 22% for the remaining 223 men; P = .007).

CONCLUSION

SC was missed using TgB alone in a non-negligible proportion of men who underwent TgB and SyB. SyB might be safely avoided in men with PI-RADS score 5 lesions with reduced risks of missing SC.

Magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy using three-dimensional ultrasound-based organ-tracking technology: Initial experience in Japan

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy on the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer using real-time three-dimensional ultrasound-based organ-tracking technology.

METHODS

The present study was a retrospective review of 262 consecutive patients with prostate-specific antigen of 7.1 ng/mL (interquartile range 4.0-19.8). All patients received pre-biopsy magnetic resonance imaging and had a suspicious lesion for clinically significant prostate cancer. All patients underwent a combination of systematic biopsy (6 cores) and three-dimensional ultrasound-based magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy (2 cores). The positive rate of any cancer, positive rate of clinically significant prostate cancer, Gleason score and maximum cancer core length were compared between systematic biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy.

RESULTS

Overall, the positive rate of any cancer per patient was 61% (160/262) in systematic biopsy versus 79% (207/262) in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy (P < 0.0001); and that of clinically significant prostate cancer per patient was 46% (120/262) in systematic biopsy versus 70% (181/262) in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy (P < 0.0001). The positive rate of any cancer per core was 21.7% (330/1523) in systematic biopsy versus 68.6% (406/592) in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy (P < 0.0001), and that of clinically significant prostate cancer per core was 12.7% (193/1423) in systematic biopsy versus 60.3% (357/592) in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy (P < 0.0001). Adding systematic biopsy leads to 13 more cancer cases (5%). The distribution of Gleason score (6/7/8/9/10) was 59/71/23/6/1 in systematic biopsy versus 48/105/36/15/2 in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy (P = 0.005). The maximum cancer core length was 5 mm (0.5-16) in systematic biopsy versus 8 mm (1-19 mm) in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Three-dimensional ultrasound-based magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy seems to be associated with a higher detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer, with fewer cores than systematic random biopsy. However, significant cancer can still be detected by the systematic technique only. A combination of systematic biopsy with the targeted biopsy technique would avoid the underdiagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Imaging as a Personalized Biomarker for Prostate Cancer Risk Stratification

Biomarkers provide objective data to guide clinicians in disease management. Prostate-specific antigen serves as a biomarker for screening of prostate cancer but has come under scrutiny for detection of clinically indolent disease. Multiple imaging techniques demonstrate promising results for diagnosing, staging, and determining definitive management of prostate cancer. One such modality, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), detects more clinically significant disease while missing lower volume and clinically insignificant disease. It also provides valuable information regarding tumor characteristics such as location and extraprostatic extension to guide surgical planning. Information from mpMRI may also help patients avoid unnecessary biopsies in the future. It can also be incorporated into targeted biopsies as well as following patients on active surveillance. Other novel techniques have also been developed to detect metastatic disease with advantages over traditional computer tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, which primarily rely on defined size criteria. These new techniques take advantage of underlying biological changes in prostate cancer tissue to identify metastatic disease. The purpose of this review is to present literature on imaging as a personalized biomarker for prostate cancer risk stratification.

Acquired Hemophilia presenting as Gross Hematuria following Kidney Stone - A Case Report and Review of the Literature

A rare condition in itself, acquired hemophilia A, seldom presents as isolated gross hematuria. It is a serious condition with a high mortality rate and thus clinical suspicion followed by prompt diagnosis is imperative (1). In fact, only 8 cases of such presentation of this condition have been reported thus far in the literature. Of these, none describe the initial presentation of hematuria with the inciting event of a kidney stone. We present a case of a 67-year-old man with signs and symptoms of nephrolithiasis accompanied by profuse hematuria, who was subsequently found to have developed expression of factor VIII inhibitor leading to acquired hemophilia A.

Prostate cancer recurrence in vas deferens - fusion image guide as an important tool in dignosis

The biochemical recurrence after local treatment for prostate cancer is an often challenging condition of clinical management. The aim of this report is to demonstrate the importance of the association of various imaging methods in the identification and subsequent accurate percutaneous biopsy in patients with recurrence of prostate cancer, especially in unusual sites. An 86 years old male with biochemical recurrence, during radiological investigation a PET-MRI was noted the presence of an asymmetry of the vas deferens with PSMA- 68Ga uptaken, suggesting the recurrence. A percutaneous fusion biopsy with PET-MRI and ultrasound was performed using transrectal access using ultrasound confirming infiltrating adenocarcinoma of the wall of the vas deferens, compatible with neoplastic prostate recurrence. The fusion image technique combines the real-time view of the US to the possibility of higher definition and higher specificity, methods more anatomical detail as tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, simultaneously. High resolution acquired in PET / MR associated with image fusion allows orientation procedures, even in areas of difficult access, with greater accuracy than conventional techniques.

Magnetic resonance imaging detection of prostate cancer in men with previous negative prostate biopsy

Use of transrectal ultrasound guided systematic prostate biopsy has poor diagnostic accuracy for prostate cancer (PCa) detection. Recently multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate and MR/US fusion biopsy has been gaining popularity for men who have previously undergone a negative biopsy. We performed PubMed® and Web of Science® searches to identify studies on this subject, particularly focusing on studies consisting of patients who have had at least one previously negative biopsy. Across the literature, when a suspicious lesion is found on mpMRI, MR/US fusion biopsy has consistently demonstrated higher detection rate for any PCa and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) compared to the traditional repeat systematic biopsy (SB) approach. Furthermore, anteriorly located tumors are frequently identified using MR targeted biopsy (TB), suggesting that an MR guided approach allows for increased accuracy for detecting tumors commonly missed by systematic biopsies. We conclude that men with a prior negative biopsy and continued suspicion of PCa should strongly be encouraged to get a prostate mpMRI prior to a repeat biopsy.

Role of multi-parametric MRI of the prostate for screening and staging: Experience with over 1500 cases

Objective

Contemporary prostate cancer (PCa) screening modalities such as prostate specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal examination (DRE) are limited in their ability to predict the detection of clinically significant disease. Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate has been explored as a staging modality for PCa. Less is known regarding its utility as a primary screening modality. We examined our experience with mpMRI as both a screening and staging instrument.

Methods

mpMRI studies performed between 2012 and 2014 in patients without PCa were cross-referenced with transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) biopsy findings. Statistical analyses were performed to determine association of mpMRI findings with overall cancer diagnoses and clinically significant (Gleason score ≥7) disease. Subgroup analyses were then performed on patients with a history of prior negative biopsy and those without a history of TRUS biopsy. mpMRI studies were also cross-referenced with RP specimens. Statistical analyses determined predictive ability of extracapsular extension (ECE), seminal vesicle involvement (SVI), and pathologic evidence of clinically significant disease (Gleason score ≥7).

Results

Four hundred biopsy naïve or prior negative biopsy patients had positive mpMRI studies. Overall sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were 94%, 37%, 58%, and 87%, respectively and 95%, 31%, 42%, and 93%, respectively for overall cancer detection and Gleason score ≥7 disease. In patients with no prior biopsy history, mpMRI sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were 94%, 36%, 65%, and 82%, for all cancers, and 95%, 30%, 50%, and 89% for Gleason score≥7 lesions, respectively. In those with prior negative biopsy sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were 94%, 37%, 52%, and 90% for all cancers, and 96%, 32%, 36%, and 96% for Gleason score ≥7 lesions, respectively. Seventy-four patients underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) after mpMRI. Lesion size on mpMRI correlated with the presence of Gleason score ≥7 cancers (p = 0.005). mpMRI sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were 84%, 39%, 81%, and 44% respectively, for Gleason ≥7 cancer. For ECE and SVI, sensitivity and specificity were 58% and 98% and 44% and 97%, respectively.

Conclusion

mpMRI is an accurate predictor of TRUS biopsy and RP outcomes. mpMRI has significant potential to change PCa management, particularly in the screening population, in whom a significant proportion may avoid TRUS biopsy. Further studies are necessary to determine how mpMRI should be incorporated into the current PCa screening and staging paradigms.