Christophe K Mannaerts1, Amir Kajtazovic2, Olivia A P Lodeizen3, Maudy Gayet2, Marc R W Engelbrecht4, Gerrit J Jager5, Hessel Wijkstra6, Theo M de Reijke3, Harrie P Beerlage7. 1. Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: c.k.mannaerts@amc.uva.nl. 2. Department of Urology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Radiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Radiology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Urology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands; Department of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Incorporation of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and targeted biopsy (TBx) in the diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer (CaP) is rapidly becoming common practice. In men with a prebiopsy positive mpMRI a TBx only approach, thereby omitting transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy (SBx), has been postulated. In this study we evaluated the additional clinical relevance of SBx in men with a positive prebiopsy mpMRI (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] ≥ 3) undergoing TBx for CaP detection, Gleason grading and CaP localization. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective data of 255 consecutive men with a prebiopsy positive mpMRI (PI-RADS ≥ 3) undergoing 12-core SBx and subsequent MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion TBx in 2 institutions between 2015 and 2018 was obtained. The detection rate for significant CaP (Gleason score [GS] ≥ 3 + 4) for TBx and SBx were compared. The rate of potentially missed significant CaP by a TBx only approach was determined and GS concordance and CaP localization by TBx and SBx was evaluated. RESULTS: TBx yielded significant CaP in 113 men (44%) while SBx yielded significant CaP in 110 men (43%) (P = 0.856). Insignificant CaP was found in 21 men (8%) by TBx, while SBx detected 34 men (13%) with insignificant CaP (P = 0.035). A TBx only approach, omitting SBx, would have missed significant CaP in 13 of the 126 men (10%) with significant CaP on biopsy. Ten of the 118 men (8%), both positive on TBx and SBx, were upgraded in GS by SBx while 11 men (9%) had higher maximum tumor core involvement on SBx. Nineteen of the 97 men (20%) with significant CaP in both TBx and SBx were diagnosed with unilateral significant CaP on mpMRI and TBx while SBx demonstrated bilateral significant CaP. CONCLUSIONS: In men with a prebiopsy positive mpMRI, TBx detects high-GS CaP while reducing insignificant CaP detection as compared to SBx. SBx and TBx as stand-alone missed significant CaP in 13% and 10% of the men with significant CaP on biopsy, respectively. A combination of SBx and TBx remains necessary for the most accurate assessment of detection, grading, tumor core involvement, and localization of CaP.
PURPOSE: Incorporation of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and targeted biopsy (TBx) in the diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer (CaP) is rapidly becoming common practice. In men with a prebiopsy positive mpMRI a TBx only approach, thereby omitting transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy (SBx), has been postulated. In this study we evaluated the additional clinical relevance of SBx in men with a positive prebiopsy mpMRI (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] ≥ 3) undergoing TBx for CaP detection, Gleason grading and CaP localization. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective data of 255 consecutive men with a prebiopsy positive mpMRI (PI-RADS ≥ 3) undergoing 12-core SBx and subsequent MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion TBx in 2 institutions between 2015 and 2018 was obtained. The detection rate for significant CaP (Gleason score [GS] ≥ 3 + 4) for TBx and SBx were compared. The rate of potentially missed significant CaP by a TBx only approach was determined and GS concordance and CaP localization by TBx and SBx was evaluated. RESULTS:TBx yielded significant CaP in 113 men (44%) while SBx yielded significant CaP in 110 men (43%) (P = 0.856). Insignificant CaP was found in 21 men (8%) by TBx, while SBx detected 34 men (13%) with insignificant CaP (P = 0.035). A TBx only approach, omitting SBx, would have missed significant CaP in 13 of the 126 men (10%) with significant CaP on biopsy. Ten of the 118 men (8%), both positive on TBx and SBx, were upgraded in GS by SBx while 11 men (9%) had higher maximum tumor core involvement on SBx. Nineteen of the 97 men (20%) with significant CaP in both TBx and SBx were diagnosed with unilateral significant CaP on mpMRI and TBx while SBx demonstrated bilateral significant CaP. CONCLUSIONS: In men with a prebiopsy positive mpMRI, TBx detects high-GS CaP while reducing insignificant CaP detection as compared to SBx. SBx and TBx as stand-alone missed significant CaP in 13% and 10% of the men with significant CaP on biopsy, respectively. A combination of SBx and TBx remains necessary for the most accurate assessment of detection, grading, tumor core involvement, and localization of CaP.
Authors: Christopher Antonio Febres-Aldana; Sarah Alghamdi; Thomas A Weppelmann; Emilio Lastarria; Akshay Bhandari; Yumna Omarzai; Robert J Poppiti Journal: Urol Ann Date: 2020-10-15
Authors: Martin J Connor; Saiful Miah; Rajiv Jayadevan; Christopher C Khoo; David Eldred-Evans; Taimur Shah; Hashim U Ahmed; Leonard Marks Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2020-06
Authors: Auke Jager; Luigi A M J G van Riel; Arnoud W Postema; Theo M de Reijke; Tim M van der Sluis; Jorg R Oddens Journal: Ther Adv Urol Date: 2022-07-26