Xiaosong Meng1, Andrew B Rosenkrantz2, Neil Mendhiratta3, Michael Fenstermaker3, Richard Huang1, James S Wysock4, Marc A Bjurlin5, Susan Marshall1, Fang-Ming Deng6, Ming Zhou6, Jonathan Melamed6, William C Huang1, Herbert Lepor1, Samir S Taneja7. 1. Department of Urology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. School of Medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Urology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Urology, New York Hospital Queens, Flushing, NY, USA. 5. Department of Urology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Urology, St. Barnabas Hospital, Bronx, NY, USA. 6. Department of Pathology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 7. Department of Urology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA; Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: samir.taneja@nyumc.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence supports the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy (MRF-TB) to improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) while limiting detection of indolent disease compared to systematic 12-core biopsy (SB). OBJECTIVE: To compare MRF-TB and SB results and investigate the relationship between biopsy outcomes and prebiopsy MRI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective analysis of a prospectively acquired cohort of men presenting for prostate biopsy over a 26-mo period. A total of 601 of 803 consecutively eligible men were included. INTERVENTIONS: All men were offered prebiopsy MRI and assigned a maximum MRI suspicion score (mSS). Men with an MRI abnormality underwent combined MRF-TB and SB. OUTCOMES: Detection rates for all PCa and high-grade PCa (Gleason score [GS] ≥7) were compared using the McNemar test. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: MRF-TB detected fewer GS 6 PCas (75 vs 121; p<0.001) and more GS ≥7 PCas (158 vs 117; p<0.001) than SB. Higher mSS was associated with higher detection of GS ≥7 PCa (p<0.001) but was not correlated with detection of GS 6 PCa. Prediction of GS ≥7 disease by mSS varied according to biopsy history. Compared to SB, MRF-TB identified more GS ≥7 PCas in men with no prior biopsy (88 vs 72; p=0.012), in men with a prior negative biopsy (28 vs 16; p=0.010), and in men with a prior cancer diagnosis (42 vs 29; p=0.043). MRF-TB detected fewer GS 6 PCas in men with no prior biopsy (32 vs 60; p<0.001) and men with prior cancer (30 vs 46; p=0.034). Limitations include the retrospective design and the potential for selection bias given a referral population. CONCLUSIONS: MRF-TB detects more high-grade PCas than SB while limiting detection of GS 6 PCa in men presenting for prostate biopsy. These findings suggest that prebiopsy multiparametric MRI and MRF-TB should be considered for all men undergoing prostate biopsy. In addition, mSS in conjunction with biopsy indications may ultimately help in identifying men at low risk of high-grade cancer for whom prostate biopsy may not be warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY: We examined how magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted prostate biopsy compares to traditional systematic biopsy in detecting prostate cancer among men with suspicion of prostate cancer. We found that MRI-targeted biopsy detected more high-grade cancers than systematic biopsy, and that MRI performed before biopsy can predict the risk of high-grade cancer.
BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence supports the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy (MRF-TB) to improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) while limiting detection of indolent disease compared to systematic 12-core biopsy (SB). OBJECTIVE: To compare MRF-TB and SB results and investigate the relationship between biopsy outcomes and prebiopsy MRI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective analysis of a prospectively acquired cohort of men presenting for prostate biopsy over a 26-mo period. A total of 601 of 803 consecutively eligible men were included. INTERVENTIONS: All men were offered prebiopsy MRI and assigned a maximum MRI suspicion score (mSS). Men with an MRI abnormality underwent combined MRF-TB and SB. OUTCOMES: Detection rates for all PCa and high-grade PCa (Gleason score [GS] ≥7) were compared using the McNemar test. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: MRF-TB detected fewer GS 6 PCas (75 vs 121; p<0.001) and more GS ≥7 PCas (158 vs 117; p<0.001) than SB. Higher mSS was associated with higher detection of GS ≥7 PCa (p<0.001) but was not correlated with detection of GS 6 PCa. Prediction of GS ≥7 disease by mSS varied according to biopsy history. Compared to SB, MRF-TB identified more GS ≥7 PCas in men with no prior biopsy (88 vs 72; p=0.012), in men with a prior negative biopsy (28 vs 16; p=0.010), and in men with a prior cancer diagnosis (42 vs 29; p=0.043). MRF-TB detected fewer GS 6 PCas in men with no prior biopsy (32 vs 60; p<0.001) and men with prior cancer (30 vs 46; p=0.034). Limitations include the retrospective design and the potential for selection bias given a referral population. CONCLUSIONS:MRF-TB detects more high-grade PCas than SB while limiting detection of GS 6 PCa in men presenting for prostate biopsy. These findings suggest that prebiopsy multiparametric MRI and MRF-TB should be considered for all men undergoing prostate biopsy. In addition, mSS in conjunction with biopsy indications may ultimately help in identifying men at low risk of high-grade cancer for whom prostate biopsy may not be warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY: We examined how magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted prostate biopsy compares to traditional systematic biopsy in detecting prostate cancer among men with suspicion of prostate cancer. We found that MRI-targeted biopsy detected more high-grade cancers than systematic biopsy, and that MRI performed before biopsy can predict the risk of high-grade cancer.
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Ruth P Lim; Mershad Haghighi; Molly B Somberg; James S Babb; Samir S Taneja Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Arvin K George; Jason Rothwax; Nabeel Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Dima Raskolnikov; Howard L Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Richard M Simon; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jeffrey J Tosoian; Bruce J Trock; Patricia Landis; Zhaoyong Feng; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; H Ballentine Carter Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-04-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Timur H Kuru; Matthias C Roethke; Jonas Seidenader; Tobias Simpfendörfer; Silvan Boxler; Khalid Alammar; Philip Rieker; Valentin I Popeneciu; Wilfried Roth; Sascha Pahernik; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Markus Hohenfellner; Boris A Hadaschik Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-04-19 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: James S Wysock; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; William C Huang; Michael D Stifelman; Herbert Lepor; Fang-Ming Deng; Jonathan Melamed; Samir S Taneja Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-11-08 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Timur H Kuru; Matthias C Roethke; Philip Rieker; Wilfried Roth; Michael Fenchel; Markus Hohenfellner; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Boris A Hadaschik Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-08-13 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Morgan R Pokorny; Maarten de Rooij; Earl Duncan; Fritz H Schröder; Robert Parkinson; Jelle O Barentsz; Leslie C Thompson Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-03-14 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Sooah Kim; Ruth P Lim; Nicole Hindman; Fang-Ming Deng; James S Babb; Samir S Taneja Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-06-20 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Matthew D Greer; Nathan Lay; Joanna H Shih; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo Kayat Bittencourt; Samuel Borofsky; Ismail Kabakus; Yan Mee Law; Jamie Marko; Haytham Shebel; Francesca V Mertan; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Ronald M Summers; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Carsten-H Ohlmann; Michael Stöckle; Peter Albers; Heinz Schmidberger; Martin Härter; Glen Kristiansen; Peter Martus; Stefan Wellek; Roswitha Bussar-Maatz; Thomas Wiegel Journal: Urologe A Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: T Franz; J von Hardenberg; A Blana; H Cash; D Baumunk; G Salomon; B Hadaschik; T Henkel; J Herrmann; F Kahmann; K-U Köhrmann; J Köllermann; S Kruck; U-B Liehr; S Machtens; I Peters; J P Radtke; A Roosen; H-P Schlemmer; L Sentker; J J Wendler; U Witzsch; J-U Stolzenburg; M Schostak; R Ganzer Journal: Urologe A Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Niklas Westhoff; Henning Haumann; Maximilian Christian Kriegmair; Jost von Hardenberg; Johannes Budjan; Stefan Porubsky; Maurice Stephan Michel; Patrick Honeck; Manuel Ritter Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-12-17 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Mohammad H Bagheri; Mark A Ahlman; Liza Lindenberg; Baris Turkbey; Jeffrey Lin; Ali Cahid Civelek; Ashkan A Malayeri; Piyush K Agarwal; Peter L Choyke; Les R Folio; Andrea B Apolo Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2017-05-12 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