Leonie Exterkate1, Olivier Wegelin2, Jelle O Barentsz3, Marloes G van der Leest3, J Alain Kummer4, Willem Vreuls5, Peter C de Bruin4, J L H Ruud Bosch6, Harm H E van Melick2, Diederik M Somford7. 1. Department of Urology, Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: l.exterkate@cwz.nl. 2. Department of Urology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein/Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboudumc Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Pathology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein/Utrecht, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Pathology, Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Oncologic Urology, UMC, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Urology, Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of targeted prostate biopsies (TBs) in patients with cancer suspicious lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) following negative systematic biopsies (SBs) is undebated. However, whether they should be combined with repeated SBs remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the value of repeated SBs in addition to TBs in patients with a prior negative SB and a persistent suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective study as part of a multicenter randomized controlled trial conducted between 2014 and 2017, including 665 men with a prior negative SB and a persistent suspicion of PCa (suspicious digital rectal examination and/or prostate-specific antigen >4.0ng/ml). INTERVENTION: All patients underwent 3T mpMRI according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2. Patients with PI-RADS ≥3 were randomized 1:1:1 for three TB techniques: MRI-TRUS fusion TB (FUS-TB), cognitive registration fusion TB (COG-TB), or in-bore MRI TB. FUS-TB and COG-TB were combined with repeated SBs. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined as Gleason ≥3+4. Differences in detection rates of csPCa, clinically insignificant PCa (cisPCa), and overall PCa between TBs (FUS-TB and COG-TB) and repeated SBs were compared using McNemar's test. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In the 152 patients who underwent both TB and SB, PCa was detected by TB in 47% and by SB in 32% (p<0.001, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.0-22%). TB detected significantly more csPCa than SB (32% vs 16%; p<0.001, 95% CI: 11-25%). Clinically significant PCa was missed by TB in 1.3% (2/152). Combining SB and TB resulted in detection rate differences of 6.0% for PCa, 5.0% for cisPCa, and 1.0% for csPCa compared with TB alone. CONCLUSIONS: In case of a persistent suspicion of PCa following a negative SB, TB detected significantly more csPCa cases than SB. The additional value of SB was limited, and only 1.3% of csPCa would have been missed when SB had been omitted. PATIENT SUMMARY: We evaluated the role of systematic biopsies and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsies for the diagnosis of prostate cancer in patients with prior negative systematic biopsies. MRI-targeted biopsies perform better in detecting prostate cancer in these patients. The value of repeated systematic biopsies is limited.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The role of targeted prostate biopsies (TBs) in patients with cancer suspicious lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) following negative systematic biopsies (SBs) is undebated. However, whether they should be combined with repeated SBs remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the value of repeated SBs in addition to TBs in patients with a prior negative SB and a persistent suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective study as part of a multicenter randomized controlled trial conducted between 2014 and 2017, including 665 men with a prior negative SB and a persistent suspicion of PCa (suspicious digital rectal examination and/or prostate-specific antigen >4.0ng/ml). INTERVENTION: All patients underwent 3T mpMRI according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2. Patients with PI-RADS ≥3 were randomized 1:1:1 for three TB techniques: MRI-TRUS fusion TB (FUS-TB), cognitive registration fusion TB (COG-TB), or in-bore MRI TB. FUS-TB and COG-TB were combined with repeated SBs. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined as Gleason ≥3+4. Differences in detection rates of csPCa, clinically insignificant PCa (cisPCa), and overall PCa between TBs (FUS-TB and COG-TB) and repeated SBs were compared using McNemar's test. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In the 152 patients who underwent both TB and SB, PCa was detected by TB in 47% and by SB in 32% (p<0.001, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.0-22%). TB detected significantly more csPCa than SB (32% vs 16%; p<0.001, 95% CI: 11-25%). Clinically significant PCa was missed by TB in 1.3% (2/152). Combining SB and TB resulted in detection rate differences of 6.0% for PCa, 5.0% for cisPCa, and 1.0% for csPCa compared with TB alone. CONCLUSIONS: In case of a persistent suspicion of PCa following a negative SB, TB detected significantly more csPCa cases than SB. The additional value of SB was limited, and only 1.3% of csPCa would have been missed when SB had been omitted. PATIENT SUMMARY: We evaluated the role of systematic biopsies and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsies for the diagnosis of prostate cancer in patients with prior negative systematic biopsies. MRI-targeted biopsies perform better in detecting prostate cancer in these patients. The value of repeated systematic biopsies is limited.
Authors: Rebecca S Steinberg; Lauren Kipling; K C Biebighauser Bens; Dattatraya Patil; Mark Henry; Akanksha Mehta; Christopher Filson Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-03-26 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Charlie J Gillis; Thomas M Southall; Robert Wilson; Michelle Anderson; Jennifer Young; Richard Hewitt; Matthew Andrews Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2022-06 Impact factor: 2.052
Authors: E J Bass; A Pantovic; M J Connor; S Loeb; A R Rastinehad; M Winkler; Rhian Gabe; H U Ahmed Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2021-09-21 Impact factor: 5.455
Authors: Anna Lantz; Erik Skaaheim Haug; Wolfgang Picker; Alessio Crippa; Fredrik Jäderling; Ashkan Mortezavi; Tobias Nordström Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-05-29 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Dordaneh Sugano; Masatomo Kaneko; Wesley Yip; Amir H Lebastchi; Giovanni E Cacciamani; Andre Luis Abreu Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Michael Ahdoot; Andrew R Wilbur; Sarah E Reese; Amir H Lebastchi; Sherif Mehralivand; Patrick T Gomella; Jonathan Bloom; Sandeep Gurram; Minhaj Siddiqui; Paul Pinsky; Howard Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria Merino; Peter L Choyke; Joanna H Shih; Baris Turkbey; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 91.245