M Minhaj Siddiqui1, Soroush Rais-Bahrami2, Baris Turkbey3, Arvin K George4, Jason Rothwax4, Nabeel Shakir4, Chinonyerem Okoro4, Dima Raskolnikov4, Howard L Parnes5, W Marston Linehan4, Maria J Merino6, Richard M Simon7, Peter L Choyke3, Bradford J Wood8, Peter A Pinto8. 1. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland7Dr Siddiqui is now with the Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Maryland, Baltimore. 2. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland8Dr Rais-Bahrami is now with the Departments of Urology and Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham. 3. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 4. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 5. Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 6. Laboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 7. Biometric Research Branch, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland. 8. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland6Center for Interventional Oncology, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, NIH Clinical Center and National Cancer Institute, National Institutes.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Targeted magnetic resonance (MR)/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy has been shown to detect prostate cancer. The implications of targeted biopsy alone vs standard extended-sextant biopsy or the 2 modalities combined are not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To assess targeted vs standard biopsy and the 2 approaches combined for the diagnosis of intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective cohort study of 1003 men undergoing both targeted and standard biopsy concurrently from 2007 through 2014 at the National Cancer Institute in the United States. Patients were referred for elevated level of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) or abnormal digital rectal examination results, often with prior negative biopsy results. Risk categorization was compared among targeted and standard biopsy and, when available, whole-gland pathology after prostatectomy as the "gold standard." INTERVENTIONS: Patients underwent multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging to identify regions of prostate cancer suspicion followed by targeted MR/ultrasound fusion biopsy and concurrent standard biopsy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary objective was to compare targeted and standard biopsy approaches for detection of high-risk prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥ 4 + 3); secondary end points focused on detection of low-risk prostate cancer (Gleason score 3 + 3 or low-volume 3 + 4) and the biopsy ability to predict whole-gland pathology at prostatectomy. RESULTS: Targeted MR/ultrasound fusion biopsy diagnosed 461 prostate cancer cases, and standard biopsy diagnosed 469 cases. There was exact agreement between targeted and standard biopsy in 690 men (69%) undergoing biopsy. Targeted biopsy diagnosed 30% more high-risk cancers vs standard biopsy (173 vs 122 cases, P < .001) and 17% fewer low-risk cancers (213 vs 258 cases, P < .001). When standard biopsy cores were combined with the targeted approach, an additional 103 cases (22%) of mostly low-risk prostate cancer were diagnosed (83% low risk, 12% intermediate risk, and 5% high risk). The predictive ability of targeted biopsy for differentiating low-risk from intermediate- and high-risk disease in 170 men with whole-gland pathology after prostatectomy was greater than that of standard biopsy or the 2 approaches combined (area under the curve, 0.73, 0.59, and 0.67, respectively; P < .05 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among men undergoing biopsy for suspected prostate cancer, targeted MR/ultrasound fusion biopsy, compared with standard extended-sextant ultrasound-guided biopsy, was associated with increased detection of high-risk prostate cancer and decreased detection of low-risk prostate cancer. Future studies will be needed to assess the ultimate clinical implications of targeted biopsy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00102544.
IMPORTANCE: Targeted magnetic resonance (MR)/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy has been shown to detect prostate cancer. The implications of targeted biopsy alone vs standard extended-sextant biopsy or the 2 modalities combined are not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To assess targeted vs standard biopsy and the 2 approaches combined for the diagnosis of intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective cohort study of 1003 men undergoing both targeted and standard biopsy concurrently from 2007 through 2014 at the National Cancer Institute in the United States. Patients were referred for elevated level of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) or abnormal digital rectal examination results, often with prior negative biopsy results. Risk categorization was compared among targeted and standard biopsy and, when available, whole-gland pathology after prostatectomy as the "gold standard." INTERVENTIONS:Patients underwent multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging to identify regions of prostate cancer suspicion followed by targeted MR/ultrasound fusion biopsy and concurrent standard biopsy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary objective was to compare targeted and standard biopsy approaches for detection of high-risk prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥ 4 + 3); secondary end points focused on detection of low-risk prostate cancer (Gleason score 3 + 3 or low-volume 3 + 4) and the biopsy ability to predict whole-gland pathology at prostatectomy. RESULTS: Targeted MR/ultrasound fusion biopsy diagnosed 461 prostate cancer cases, and standard biopsy diagnosed 469 cases. There was exact agreement between targeted and standard biopsy in 690 men (69%) undergoing biopsy. Targeted biopsy diagnosed 30% more high-risk cancers vs standard biopsy (173 vs 122 cases, P < .001) and 17% fewer low-risk cancers (213 vs 258 cases, P < .001). When standard biopsy cores were combined with the targeted approach, an additional 103 cases (22%) of mostly low-risk prostate cancer were diagnosed (83% low risk, 12% intermediate risk, and 5% high risk). The predictive ability of targeted biopsy for differentiating low-risk from intermediate- and high-risk disease in 170 men with whole-gland pathology after prostatectomy was greater than that of standard biopsy or the 2 approaches combined (area under the curve, 0.73, 0.59, and 0.67, respectively; P < .05 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among men undergoing biopsy for suspected prostate cancer, targeted MR/ultrasound fusion biopsy, compared with standard extended-sextant ultrasound-guided biopsy, was associated with increased detection of high-risk prostate cancer and decreased detection of low-risk prostate cancer. Future studies will be needed to assess the ultimate clinical implications of targeted biopsy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00102544.
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: Geoffrey A Sonn; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J A Margolis; Malu MacAiran; Patricia Lieu; Jiaoti Huang; Frederick J Dorey; Leonard S Marks Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-11-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Meelan Bul; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Xiaoye Zhu; Antti Rannikko; Hanna Vasarainen; Chris H Bangma; Fritz H Schröder; Monique J Roobol Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-08-29 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Jennifer R Stark; Sven Perner; Meir J Stampfer; Jennifer A Sinnott; Stephen Finn; Anna S Eisenstein; Jing Ma; Michelangelo Fiorentino; Tobias Kurth; Massimo Loda; Edward L Giovannucci; Mark A Rubin; Lorelei A Mucci Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Masoom A Haider; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Jeff Tanguay; Andrew J Evans; Ali-Tahir Hashmi; Gina Lockwood; John Trachtenberg Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 3.959
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: Nitin K Yerram; Dmitry Volkin; Baris Turkbey; Jeffrey Nix; Anthony N Hoang; Srinivas Vourganti; Gopal N Gupta; W Marston Linehan; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-11-06 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Matthew D Greer; Anna M Brown; Joanna H Shih; Ronald M Summers; Jamie Marko; Yan Mee Law; Sandeep Sankineni; Arvin K George; Maria J Merino; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Shekoofeh Azizi; Sharareh Bayat; Pingkun Yan; Amir Tahmasebi; Guy Nir; Jin Tae Kwak; Sheng Xu; Storey Wilson; Kenneth A Iczkowski; M Scott Lucia; Larry Goldenberg; Septimiu E Salcudean; Peter A Pinto; Bradford Wood; Purang Abolmaesumi; Parvin Mousavi Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2017-06-20 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Luca F Valle; Matthew D Greer; Joanna H Shih; Tristan Barrett; Yan Mee Law; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Haytham Shebel; Akhil Muthigi; Daniel Su; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Andra V Krauze; Aradhana Kaushal; Peter L Choyke; Barış Türkbey; Deborah E Citrin Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2018 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.630
Authors: Sonia Gaur; Stephanie Harmon; Lauren Rosenblum; Matthew D Greer; Sherif Mehralivand; Mehmet Coskun; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Joanna H Shih; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2018-05-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Abhinav Sidana; Matthew J Watson; Arvin K George; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Srinivas Vourganti; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Akhil Muthigi; Mahir Maruf; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Jeffrey W Nix; Maria J Merino; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Julie Y An; Stephanie A Harmon; Sherif Mehralivand; Marcin Czarniecki; Clayton P Smith; Julie A Peretti; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Joanna H Shih; Baris Turkbey Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2018-12
Authors: Ryan L Brunsing; Natalie M Schenker-Ahmed; Nathan S White; J Kellogg Parsons; Christopher Kane; Joshua Kuperman; Hauke Bartsch; Andrew Karim Kader; Rebecca Rakow-Penner; Tyler M Seibert; Daniel Margolis; Steven S Raman; Carrie R McDonald; Nikdokht Farid; Santosh Kesari; Donna Hansel; Ahmed Shabaik; Anders M Dale; David S Karow Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Edwin J R van Beek; Christiane Kuhl; Yoshimi Anzai; Patricia Desmond; Richard L Ehman; Qiyong Gong; Garry Gold; Vikas Gulani; Margaret Hall-Craggs; Tim Leiner; C C Tschoyoson Lim; James G Pipe; Scott Reeder; Caroline Reinhold; Marion Smits; Daniel K Sodickson; Clare Tempany; H Alberto Vargas; Meiyun Wang Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-08-25 Impact factor: 4.813