Cancer Detection Rates of Systematic and Targeted Prostate Biopsies after Biparametric MRI

[Prostate cancer-multiparametric MRI and alternative approaches in intervention and therapy planning]

BACKGROUND

In recent years, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate has gained importance and plays a crucial role in both personalized diagnostics and increasingly in the treatment planning for patients with prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to present established and innovative applications of MRI in the diagnosis and treatment of localized prostate cancer, evaluating their strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, it will explore alternative approaches and compare them in a comprehensive manner.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature review on the application of mpMRI for biopsy and therapy planning was conducted.

RESULTS

The integration of modern imaging techniques, especially mpMRI, into the diagnostic algorithm has revolutionized prostate cancer diagnosis. MRI and MRI-guided biopsy detect more significant prostate cancer, with the potential to reduce unnecessary biopsies and the diagnosis of clinically insignificant carcinomas. In addition, MRI provides crucial information for risk stratification and treatment planning in prostate cancer patients, both before radical prostatectomy and during active surveillance.

CONCLUSION

Multiparametric MRI offers significant added value for the diagnosis and treatment of localized prostate cancer. The advancement of MRI analysis, such as the implementation of artificial intelligence algorithms, holds the potential for further enhancing imaging diagnostics.

External validation of the Rotterdam prostate cancer risk calculator within a high-risk Dutch clinical cohort

PURPOSE

This study aims to externally validate the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC)-3/4 and RPCRC-MRI within a Dutch clinical cohort.

METHODS

Men subjected to prostate biopsies, between 2018 and 2021, due to a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa) were retrospectively included. The performance of the RPCRC-3/4 and RPCRC-MRI was analyzed in terms of discrimination, calibration and net benefit. In addition, the need for recalibration and adjustment of risk thresholds for referral was investigated. Clinically significant (cs) PCa was defined as Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4.

RESULTS

A total of 1575 men were included in the analysis. PCa was diagnosed in 63.2% (996/1575) of men and csPCa in 41.7% (656/1575) of men. Use of the RPCRC-3/4 could have prevented 37.3% (587/1575) of all MRIs within this cohort, thereby missing 18.3% (120/656) of csPCa diagnoses. After recalibration and adjustment of risk thresholds to 20% for PCa and 10% for csPCa, use of the recalibrated RPCRC-3/4 could have prevented 15.1% (238/1575) of all MRIs, resulting in 5.3% (35/656) of csPCa diagnoses being missed. The performance of the RPCRC-MRI was good; use of this risk calculator could have prevented 10.7% (169/1575) of all biopsies, resulting in 1.2% (8/656) of csPCa diagnoses being missed.

CONCLUSION

The RPCRC-3/4 underestimates the probability of having csPCa within this Dutch clinical cohort, resulting in significant numbers of csPCa diagnoses being missed. For optimal performance of a risk calculator in a specific cohort, evaluation of its performance within the population under study is essential.

Reasons for missing clinically significant prostate cancer by targeted magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluates cases with clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) missed by targeted biopsy (TB) and analyzes the diagnostic impact of an additional systematic biopsy (SB) in a large patient collective.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with a 3 T multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI) and a subsequent MRI/US fusion-guided TB plus 12-core US-guided SB from 01/2014 to 04/2019 were included in this study. Primary study endpoint was the analysis of cases with a csPCa missed by TB and detected by SB. Secondary study objectives were the PCa detection and the correlation with clinical and MRI parameters.

RESULTS

In total 785 patients met the inclusion criteria. 342 patients had a csPCa (median PSAD 0.29 ng/mL/cm³). In 42 patients (13 %), a csPCa was detected only by SB. In 36 of these cases, the localization of the positive SB cores matched with the cancer suspicious region described on mpMRI (mCSR). Cases with a csPCA missed by TB showed either an insufficient MRI segmentation (prostate boundary correlation) (31 %) and/or insufficient lesion registration (lesion transfer, tracking, and/or matching) (48 %), a missed small lesion (14 %), or a failed center of a large lesion (10 %). Median PSAD of patients with non-significant PCa detected by SB was 0.15 ng/mL/cm³.

CONCLUSIONS

Main reasons for missing a csPCa by TB were insufficient prostate segmentation or imprecise lesion registration within MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy. Consequently, verification of MRI quality, exact mCSR assessment, and advanced biopsy experience may improve accuracy. Altogether, an additional SB adds limited clinical benefit in men with PSAD ≤ 0.15 ng/mL/cm³.