Veeru Kasivisvanathan1, Antti S Rannikko1, Marcelo Borghi1, Valeria Panebianco1, Lance A Mynderse1, Markku H Vaarala1, Alberto Briganti1, Lars Budäus1, Giles Hellawell1, Richard G Hindley1, Monique J Roobol1, Scott Eggener1, Maneesh Ghei1, Arnauld Villers1, Franck Bladou1, Geert M Villeirs1, Jaspal Virdi1, Silvan Boxler1, Grégoire Robert1, Paras B Singh1, Wulphert Venderink1, Boris A Hadaschik1, Alain Ruffion1, Jim C Hu1, Daniel Margolis1, Sébastien Crouzet1, Laurence Klotz1, Samir S Taneja1, Peter Pinto1, Inderbir Gill1, Clare Allen1, Francesco Giganti1, Alex Freeman1, Stephen Morris1, Shonit Punwani1, Norman R Williams1, Chris Brew-Graves1, Jonathan Deeks1, Yemisi Takwoingi1, Mark Emberton1, Caroline M Moore1. 1. From University College London (UCL) and UCL Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (V.K., C.A., F.G., A.F., S.M., S.P., M.E., C.M.M.), London North West Healthcare NHS Trust (G.H.), Whittington Health NHS Trust (M.G.), Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust (P.B.S.), and UCL Surgical and Interventional Trials Unit (N.R.W., C.B.-G.), London, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke (R.G.H.), Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, Harlow (J.V.), and the Institute of Applied Health Research and the NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham (J.D., Y.T.) - all in the United Kingdom; Helsinki University and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki (A.S.R.), and Medical Research Center Oulu, University of Oulu and Oulu University Hospital, Oulu (M.H.V.) - all in Finland; Centro de Urología, Buenos Aires (M.B.); Sapienza University, Rome (V.P.), and IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele and Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan (A.B.) - all in Italy; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (L.A.M.); Martini Klinik, Hamburg (L.B.), University Hospital Essen, Essen (B.A.H.), and University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg (B.A.H.) - all in Germany; Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam (M.J.R.), and Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen (W.V.) - both in the Netherlands; University of Chicago, Chicago (S.E.); Université de Lille and Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Lille, Lille (A.V.), Université de Bordeaux and Bordeaux Pellegrin University Hospital, Bordeaux (G.R.), and Hospices Civils de Lyon, Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud (A.R.), and Hospices Civils de Lyon of the Hôpital Edouard Herriot (S.C.), Lyon - all in France; Jewish General Hospital, Montreal (F.B.), and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto (L.K.) - both in Canada; Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium (G.M.V.); University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland (S.B.); Weill Cornell Medicine, New York-Presbyterian Hospital (J.C.H., D.M.), and New York University Langone Medical Center (S.S.T.), New York; National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD (P.P.); and the University of Southern California Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles (I.G.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without targeted biopsy, is an alternative to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy for prostate-cancer detection in men with a raised prostate-specific antigen level who have not undergone biopsy. However, comparative evidence is limited. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial, we assigned men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously to undergo MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, or standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. Men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group underwent a targeted biopsy (without standard biopsy cores) if the MRI was suggestive of prostate cancer; men whose MRI results were not suggestive of prostate cancer were not offered biopsy. Standard biopsy was a 10-to-12-core, transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. The primary outcome was the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically significant cancer. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer. RESULTS: A total of 500 men underwent randomization. In the MRI-targeted biopsy group, 71 of 252 men (28%) had MRI results that were not suggestive of prostate cancer, so they did not undergo biopsy. Clinically significant cancer was detected in 95 men (38%) in the MRI-targeted biopsy group, as compared with 64 of 248 (26%) in the standard-biopsy group (adjusted difference, 12 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4 to 20; P=0.005). MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, was noninferior to standard biopsy, and the 95% confidence interval indicated the superiority of this strategy over standard biopsy. Fewer men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group than in the standard-biopsy group received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer (adjusted difference, -13 percentage points; 95% CI, -19 to -7; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of risk assessment with MRI before biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy was superior to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy in men at clinical risk for prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and the European Association of Urology Research Foundation; PRECISION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02380027 .).
BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without targeted biopsy, is an alternative to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy for prostate-cancer detection in men with a raised prostate-specific antigen level who have not undergone biopsy. However, comparative evidence is limited. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial, we assigned men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously to undergo MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, or standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. Men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group underwent a targeted biopsy (without standard biopsy cores) if the MRI was suggestive of prostate cancer; men whose MRI results were not suggestive of prostate cancer were not offered biopsy. Standard biopsy was a 10-to-12-core, transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. The primary outcome was the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically significant cancer. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer. RESULTS: A total of 500 men underwent randomization. In the MRI-targeted biopsy group, 71 of 252 men (28%) had MRI results that were not suggestive of prostate cancer, so they did not undergo biopsy. Clinically significant cancer was detected in 95 men (38%) in the MRI-targeted biopsy group, as compared with 64 of 248 (26%) in the standard-biopsy group (adjusted difference, 12 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4 to 20; P=0.005). MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, was noninferior to standard biopsy, and the 95% confidence interval indicated the superiority of this strategy over standard biopsy. Fewer men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group than in the standard-biopsy group received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer (adjusted difference, -13 percentage points; 95% CI, -19 to -7; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of risk assessment with MRI before biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy was superior to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy in men at clinical risk for prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and the European Association of Urology Research Foundation; PRECISION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02380027 .).
Authors: Timothy J Wilt; Karen M Jones; Michael J Barry; Gerald L Andriole; Daniel Culkin; Thomas Wheeler; William J Aronson; Michael K Brawer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-07-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sam J Egger; Ross J Calopedos; Dianne L O'Connell; Suzanne K Chambers; Henry H Woo; David P Smith Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2017-08-26 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: M F Janssen; A Simon Pickard; Dominik Golicki; Claire Gudex; Maciej Niewada; Luciana Scalone; Paul Swinburn; Jan Busschbach Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2012-11-25 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Maarten de Rooij; Simone Crienen; J Alfred Witjes; Jelle O Barentsz; Maroeska M Rovers; Janneke P C Grutters Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-12-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Louise Dickinson; Hashim U Ahmed; Clare Allen; Jelle O Barentsz; Brendan Carey; Jurgen J Futterer; Stijn W Heijmink; Peter J Hoskin; Alex Kirkham; Anwar R Padhani; Raj Persad; Philippe Puech; Shonit Punwani; Aslam S Sohaib; Bertrand Tombal; Arnauld Villers; Jan van der Meulen; Mark Emberton Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-12-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ronald C Chen; Ramsankar Basak; Anne-Marie Meyer; Tzy-Mey Kuo; William R Carpenter; Robert P Agans; James R Broughman; Bryce B Reeve; Matthew E Nielsen; Deborah S Usinger; Kiayni C Spearman; Sarah Walden; Dianne Kaleel; Mary Anderson; Til Stürmer; Paul A Godley Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Hashim U Ahmed; Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily; Louise C Brown; Rhian Gabe; Richard Kaplan; Mahesh K Parmar; Yolanda Collaco-Moraes; Katie Ward; Richard G Hindley; Alex Freeman; Alex P Kirkham; Robert Oldroyd; Chris Parker; Mark Emberton Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Fatima Jichi; Laurence Klotz; Arnauld Villers; Samir S Taneja; Shonit Punwani; Alex Freeman; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-10-12 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Christian Herz; Kyle MacNeil; Peter A Behringer; Junichi Tokuda; Alireza Mehrtash; Parvin Mousavi; Ron Kikinis; Fiona M Fennessy; Clare M Tempany; Kemal Tuncali; Andriy Fedorov Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Clayton P Smith; Stephanie A Harmon; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo K Bittencourt; Yan Mee Law; Haytham Shebel; Julie Y An; Marcin Czarniecki; Sherif Mehralivand; Mehmet Coskun; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Joanna H Shih; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Jonathan B Bloom; Graham R Hale; Samuel A Gold; Kareem N Rayn; Clayton Smith; Sherif Mehralivand; Marcin Czarniecki; Vladimir Valera; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Howard L Parnes; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Alessandro Tafuri; Akbar N Ashrafi; Suzanne Palmer; Aliasger Shakir; Giovanni E Cacciamani; Atsuko Iwata; Tsuyoshi Iwata; Jie Cai; Akash Sali; Chhavi Gupta; Luis G Medina; Mariana C Stern; Vinay Duddalwar; Manju Aron; Inderbir S Gill; Andre Abreu Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-06-07 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Elizabeth C Randall; Giorgia Zadra; Paolo Chetta; Begona G C Lopez; Sudeepa Syamala; Sankha S Basu; Jeffrey N Agar; Massimo Loda; Clare M Tempany; Fiona M Fennessy; Nathalie Y R Agar Journal: Mol Cancer Res Date: 2019-02-11 Impact factor: 5.852
Authors: Pelin Aksit Ciris; Jr-Yuan George Chiou; Daniel I Glazer; Tzu-Cheng Chao; Clare M Tempany-Afdhal; Bruno Madore; Stephan E Maier Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Rui Li; Sheng Xu; Ivane Bakhutashvili; Ismail B Turkbey; Peter Choyke; Peter Pinto; Bradford Wood; Zion T H Tse Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2018-11-28 Impact factor: 3.934