Nienke L Hansen1,2,3, Claudia Kesch4, Tristan Barrett3,5, Brendan Koo3,5, Jan P Radtke4,6, David Bonekamp6, Heinz-Peter Schlemmer6, Anne Y Warren3,7, Kathrin Wieczorek8, Markus Hohenfellner4, Christof Kastner3,9, Boris Hadaschik4. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany. 2. CamPARI Clinic, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 3. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 4. Department of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 5. Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 6. Department of Radiology, DKFZ, Heidelberg, Germany. 7. Department of Pathology, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 8. Institute of Pathology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 9. Department of Urology, Addenbrooke's Hospital and University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the detection rates of targeted and systematic biopsies in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US) image-fusion transperineal prostate biopsy for patients with previous benign transrectal biopsies in two high-volume centres. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A two centre prospective outcome study of 487 patients with previous benign biopsies that underwent transperineal MRI/US fusion-guided targeted and systematic saturation biopsy from 2012 to 2015. Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) was reported according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) Version 1. Detection of Gleason score 7-10 prostate cancer on biopsy was the primary outcome. Positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values including 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated. Detection rates of targeted and systematic biopsies were compared using McNemar's test. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) PSA level was 9.0 (6.7-13.4) ng/mL. PI-RADS 3-5 mpMRI lesions were reported in 343 (70%) patients and Gleason score 7-10 prostate cancer was detected in 149 (31%). The PPV (95% CI) for detecting Gleason score 7-10 prostate cancer was 0.20 (±0.07) for PI-RADS 3, 0.32 (±0.09) for PI-RADS 4, and 0.70 (±0.08) for PI-RADS 5. The NPV (95% CI) of PI-RADS 1-2 was 0.92 (±0.04) for Gleason score 7-10 and 0.99 (±0.02) for Gleason score ≥4 + 3 cancer. Systematic biopsies alone found 125/138 (91%) Gleason score 7-10 cancers. In patients with suspicious lesions (PI-RADS 4-5) on mpMRI, systematic biopsies would not have detected 12/113 significant prostate cancers (11%), while targeted biopsies alone would have failed to diagnose 10/113 (9%). In equivocal lesions (PI-RADS 3), targeted biopsy alone would not have diagnosed 14/25 (56%) of Gleason score 7-10 cancers, whereas systematic biopsies alone would have missed 1/25 (4%). Combination with PSA density improved the area under the curve of PI-RADS from 0.822 to 0.846. CONCLUSION: In patients with high probability mpMRI lesions, the highest detection rates of Gleason score 7-10 cancer still required combined targeted and systematic MRI/US image-fusion; however, systematic biopsy alone may be sufficient in patients with equivocal lesions. Repeated prostate biopsies may not be needed at all for patients with a low PSA density and a negative mpMRI read by experienced radiologists.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the detection rates of targeted and systematic biopsies in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US) image-fusion transperineal prostate biopsy for patients with previous benign transrectal biopsies in two high-volume centres. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A two centre prospective outcome study of 487 patients with previous benign biopsies that underwent transperineal MRI/US fusion-guided targeted and systematic saturation biopsy from 2012 to 2015. Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) was reported according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) Version 1. Detection of Gleason score 7-10 prostate cancer on biopsy was the primary outcome. Positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values including 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated. Detection rates of targeted and systematic biopsies were compared using McNemar's test. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) PSA level was 9.0 (6.7-13.4) ng/mL. PI-RADS 3-5 mpMRI lesions were reported in 343 (70%) patients and Gleason score 7-10 prostate cancer was detected in 149 (31%). The PPV (95% CI) for detecting Gleason score 7-10 prostate cancer was 0.20 (±0.07) for PI-RADS 3, 0.32 (±0.09) for PI-RADS 4, and 0.70 (±0.08) for PI-RADS 5. The NPV (95% CI) of PI-RADS 1-2 was 0.92 (±0.04) for Gleason score 7-10 and 0.99 (±0.02) for Gleason score ≥4 + 3 cancer. Systematic biopsies alone found 125/138 (91%) Gleason score 7-10 cancers. In patients with suspicious lesions (PI-RADS 4-5) on mpMRI, systematic biopsies would not have detected 12/113 significant prostate cancers (11%), while targeted biopsies alone would have failed to diagnose 10/113 (9%). In equivocal lesions (PI-RADS 3), targeted biopsy alone would not have diagnosed 14/25 (56%) of Gleason score 7-10 cancers, whereas systematic biopsies alone would have missed 1/25 (4%). Combination with PSA density improved the area under the curve of PI-RADS from 0.822 to 0.846. CONCLUSION: In patients with high probability mpMRI lesions, the highest detection rates of Gleason score 7-10 cancer still required combined targeted and systematic MRI/US image-fusion; however, systematic biopsy alone may be sufficient in patients with equivocal lesions. Repeated prostate biopsies may not be needed at all for patients with a low PSA density and a negative mpMRI read by experienced radiologists.
Authors: Anwar R Padhani; Jelle Barentsz; Geert Villeirs; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Daniel J Margolis; Baris Turkbey; Harriet C Thoeny; François Cornud; Masoom A Haider; Katarzyna J Macura; Clare M Tempany; Sadhna Verma; Jeffrey C Weinreb Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Frank-Jan H Drost; Daniël F Osses; Daan Nieboer; Ewout W Steyerberg; Chris H Bangma; Monique J Roobol; Ivo G Schoots Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-04-25
Authors: Verena C Obmann; Shivani Pahwa; William Tabayayong; Yun Jiang; Gregory O'Connor; Sara Dastmalchian; John Lu; Soham Shah; Karin A Herrmann; Raj Paspulati; Gregory MacLennan; Lee Ponsky; Robert Abouassaly; Vikas Gulani Journal: Urology Date: 2018-09-07 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Erin Baumgartner; Maria Del Carmen Rodriguez Pena; Marie-Lisa Eich; Kristin K Porter; Jeffrey W Nix; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Jennifer Gordetsky Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2019-05-07 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: August Sigle; Cordula A Jilg; Timur H Kuru; Nadine Binder; Jakob Michaelis; Markus Grabbert; Wolfgang Schultze-Seemann; Arkadiusz Miernik; Christian Gratzke; Matthias Benndorf; Rodrigo Suarez-Ibarrola Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 6.639