Nabeel A Shakir1, Arvin K George1, M Minhaj Siddiqui1, Jason T Rothwax1, Soroush Rais-Bahrami1, Lambros Stamatakis1, Daniel Su1, Chinonyerem Okoro1, Dima Raskolnikov1, Annerleim Walton-Diaz1, Richard Simon2, Baris Turkbey3, Peter L Choyke3, Maria J Merino4, Bradford J Wood5, Peter A Pinto6. 1. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 2. Biometric Research Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 3. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 4. Laboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 5. Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 6. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland; Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Electronic address: pintop@mail.nih.gov.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prostate specific antigen sensitivity increases with lower threshold values but with a corresponding decrease in specificity. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound targeted biopsy detects prostate cancer more efficiently and of higher grade than standard 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy but the optimal population for its use is not well defined. We evaluated the performance of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound targeted biopsy vs 12-core biopsy across a prostate specific antigen continuum. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of all patients enrolled in a prospective trial who underwent 12-core transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound targeted biopsies from August 2007 through February 2014. Patients were stratified by each of 4 prostate specific antigen cutoffs. The greatest Gleason score using either biopsy method was compared in and across groups as well as across the population prostate specific antigen range. Clinically significant prostate cancer was defined as Gleason 7 (4 + 3) or greater. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 1,003 targeted and 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsies were performed, of which 564 diagnosed prostate cancer for a 56.2% detection rate. Targeted biopsy led to significantly more upgrading to clinically significant disease compared to 12-core biopsy. This trend increased more with increasing prostate specific antigen, specifically in patients with prostate specific antigen 4 to 10 and greater than 10 ng/ml. Prostate specific antigen 5.2 ng/ml or greater captured 90% of upgrading by targeted biopsy, corresponding to 64% of patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and subsequent fusion biopsy. Conversely a greater proportion of clinically insignificant disease was detected by 12-core vs targeted biopsy overall. These differences persisted when controlling for potential confounders on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer upgrading with targeted biopsy increases with an increasing prostate specific antigen cutoff. Above a prostate specific antigen threshold of 5.2 ng/ml most upgrading to clinically significant disease was achieved by targeted biopsy. In our population this corresponded to potentially sparing biopsy in 36% of patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Below this value 12-core biopsy detected more clinically insignificant cancer. Thus, the diagnostic usefulness of targeted biopsy is optimized in patients with prostate specific antigen 5.2 ng/ml or greater.
PURPOSE:Prostate specific antigen sensitivity increases with lower threshold values but with a corresponding decrease in specificity. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound targeted biopsy detects prostate cancer more efficiently and of higher grade than standard 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy but the optimal population for its use is not well defined. We evaluated the performance of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound targeted biopsy vs 12-core biopsy across a prostate specific antigen continuum. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of all patients enrolled in a prospective trial who underwent 12-core transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound targeted biopsies from August 2007 through February 2014. Patients were stratified by each of 4 prostate specific antigen cutoffs. The greatest Gleason score using either biopsy method was compared in and across groups as well as across the population prostate specific antigen range. Clinically significant prostate cancer was defined as Gleason 7 (4 + 3) or greater. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 1,003 targeted and 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsies were performed, of which 564 diagnosed prostate cancer for a 56.2% detection rate. Targeted biopsy led to significantly more upgrading to clinically significant disease compared to 12-core biopsy. This trend increased more with increasing prostate specific antigen, specifically in patients with prostate specific antigen 4 to 10 and greater than 10 ng/ml. Prostate specific antigen 5.2 ng/ml or greater captured 90% of upgrading by targeted biopsy, corresponding to 64% of patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and subsequent fusion biopsy. Conversely a greater proportion of clinically insignificant disease was detected by 12-core vs targeted biopsy overall. These differences persisted when controlling for potential confounders on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS:Prostate cancer upgrading with targeted biopsy increases with an increasing prostate specific antigen cutoff. Above a prostate specific antigen threshold of 5.2 ng/ml most upgrading to clinically significant disease was achieved by targeted biopsy. In our population this corresponded to potentially sparing biopsy in 36% of patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Below this value 12-core biopsy detected more clinically insignificant cancer. Thus, the diagnostic usefulness of targeted biopsy is optimized in patients with prostate specific antigen 5.2 ng/ml or greater.
Authors: Caroline M Moore; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Scott Eggener; Mark Emberton; Jurgen J Fütterer; Inderbir S Gill; Robert L Grubb Iii; Boris Hadaschik; Laurence Klotz; Daniel J A Margolis; Leonard S Marks; Jonathan Melamed; Aytekin Oto; Suzanne L Palmer; Peter Pinto; Philippe Puech; Shonit Punwani; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Ivo G Schoots; Richard Simon; Samir S Taneja; Baris Turkbey; Osamu Ukimura; Jan van der Meulen; Arnauld Villers; Yuji Watanabe Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-03-20 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Vijay Shah; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Marcelino Bernardo; Thomas Pohida; Yuxi Pang; Dagane Daar; Compton Benjamin; Yolanda L McKinney; Hari Trivedi; Celene Chua; Gennady Bratslavsky; Joanna H Shih; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-09-25 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Baris Turkbey; Simpa S Salami; Oksana Yaskiv; Arvin K George; Mathew Fakhoury; Karin Beecher; Manish A Vira; Louis R Kavoussi; David N Siegel; Robert Villani; Eran Ben-Levi Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-12-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Dmitry Volkin; Baris Turkbey; Anthony N Hoang; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Nitin Yerram; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Jeffrey W Nix; Bradford J Wood; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-10-18 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Lambros Stamatakis; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Jeffrey W Nix; Jennifer Logan; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Anthony N Hoang; Srinivas Vourganti; Hong Truong; Brian Shuch; Howard L Parnes; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Richard M Simon; Peter A Pinto Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-07-02 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Peter A Pinto; Paul H Chung; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Angelo A Baccala; Jochen Kruecker; Compton J Benjamin; Sheng Xu; Pingkun Yan; Samuel Kadoury; Celene Chua; Julia K Locklin; Baris Turkbey; Joanna H Shih; Stacey P Gates; Carey Buckner; Gennady Bratslavsky; W Marston Linehan; Neil D Glossop; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jennifer K Logan; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Andrew Gomella; Hayet Amalou; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-05-22 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Omer Aras; Jennifer Ho; Anthony Hoang; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Harsh Agarwal; Vijay Shah; Marcelino Bernardo; Yuxi Pang; Dagane Daar; Yolanda L McKinney; W Marston Linehan; Aradhana Kaushal; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-03-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jeffrey J Tosoian; Eric JohnBull; Bruce J Trock; Patricia Landis; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; H Ballentine Carter Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-04-30 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Michael Kongnyuy; Abhinav Sidana; Arvin K George; Akhil Muthigi; Amogh Iyer; Michele Fascelli; Meet Kadakia; Thomas P Frye; Richard Ho; Francesca Mertan; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Daniel Su; Maria J Merino; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2016-02-20 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Matthew J Watson; Arvin K George; Mahir Maruf; Thomas P Frye; Akhil Muthigi; Michael Kongnyuy; Subin G Valayil; Peter A Pinto Journal: Future Oncol Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 3.404
Authors: Akhil Muthigi; Arvin K George; Abhinav Sidana; Michael Kongnyuy; Richard Simon; Vanessa Moreno; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-08-28 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Dima Raskolnikov; Arvin K George; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Nabeel A Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Jason T Rothwax; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Sandeep Sankineni; Daniel Su; Lambros Stamatakis; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-01-23 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Chinonyerem Okoro; Arvin K George; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Nabeel A Shakir; Jason T Rothwax; Dima Raskolnikov; Lambros Stamatakis; Daniel Su; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Maria J Merino; Howard L Parnes; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Endourol Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Arvin K George; Baris Turkbey; Subin G Valayil; Akhil Muthigi; Francesca Mertan; Michael Kongnyuy; Peter A Pinto Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2016-05
Authors: M Minhaj Siddiqui; Arvin K George; Rachel Rubin; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Howard L Parnes; Maria J Merino; Richard M Simon; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2016-04-29 Impact factor: 13.506