PURPOSE: In our center, until 2018, MRI-targeted biopsy was underused. Since January 2018, we systematically performed MRI-targeted biopsy for suspicious PI-RADS ≥ 3 lesions in accordance to the recent guidelines. We hypothesized that the implementation of systematic prebiopsy MRI would increase the detection rate (DR) of prostate cancer (PCa) without increasing DR of clinically insignificant PCa (insignPCa). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective study including consecutive men who underwent prostate biopsy for suspicion of PCa in our center between January 2017 and December 2018 was conducted. Combined biopsies were performed for suspicious MRI and systematic biopsies for nonsuspicious MRI. The primary outcome was to compare the DR of PCa per year. Secondary outcomes included DRs of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) and insignPCa between both years and outcomes of targeted vs systematic biopsies. RESULTS: A total of 306 men (152 in 2017 and 154 in 2018) were included. Respectively, median (IQR) age was 69 (63-75) vs 70 (65-76) years (p = 0.29) and median (IQR) PSA density was 0.17 (0.13-0.28) vs 0.17 (0.11-0.26) (p = 0.24). There was a significant increase in prebiopsy MRI performed (120 [78.9%] vs 143 [92.8%]; p < 0.001) in 2018. DRs of PCa (94 [61.8%] vs 112 [72.7%]; p = 0.04) and csPCa (76 [50%] vs 95 [61.6%]; p = 0.04) increased in 2018, while the insignPCa DR was stable (p = 0.13). The DR of PCa was 58.3%, 65% and 71.2%, respectively, in targeted, systematic and combined biopsies (p = 0.02). In case of nonsuspicious MRI, the prevalence of csPCA was 12.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing systematical MRI-targeted biopsy in our clinical setting increased the PCa DR without overdiagnosing insignPCa. Implementation of prebiopsy MRI does not seem to avoid the need for systematic biopsy, and nonsuspicious MRI should not obviate the need for prostate biopsy when otherwise clinically indicated.
PURPOSE: In our center, until 2018, MRI-targeted biopsy was underused. Since January 2018, we systematically performed MRI-targeted biopsy for suspicious PI-RADS ≥ 3 lesions in accordance to the recent guidelines. We hypothesized that the implementation of systematic prebiopsy MRI would increase the detection rate (DR) of prostate cancer (PCa) without increasing DR of clinically insignificant PCa (insignPCa). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective study including consecutive men who underwent prostate biopsy for suspicion of PCa in our center between January 2017 and December 2018 was conducted. Combined biopsies were performed for suspicious MRI and systematic biopsies for nonsuspicious MRI. The primary outcome was to compare the DR of PCa per year. Secondary outcomes included DRs of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) and insignPCa between both years and outcomes of targeted vs systematic biopsies. RESULTS: A total of 306 men (152 in 2017 and 154 in 2018) were included. Respectively, median (IQR) age was 69 (63-75) vs 70 (65-76) years (p = 0.29) and median (IQR) PSA density was 0.17 (0.13-0.28) vs 0.17 (0.11-0.26) (p = 0.24). There was a significant increase in prebiopsy MRI performed (120 [78.9%] vs 143 [92.8%]; p < 0.001) in 2018. DRs of PCa (94 [61.8%] vs 112 [72.7%]; p = 0.04) and csPCa (76 [50%] vs 95 [61.6%]; p = 0.04) increased in 2018, while the insignPCa DR was stable (p = 0.13). The DR of PCa was 58.3%, 65% and 71.2%, respectively, in targeted, systematic and combined biopsies (p = 0.02). In case of nonsuspicious MRI, the prevalence of csPCA was 12.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing systematical MRI-targeted biopsy in our clinical setting increased the PCa DR without overdiagnosing insignPCa. Implementation of prebiopsy MRI does not seem to avoid the need for systematic biopsy, and nonsuspicious MRI should not obviate the need for prostate biopsy when otherwise clinically indicated.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biopsy; Detection rate; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostate cancer
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: Marloes van der Leest; Erik Cornel; Bas Israël; Rianne Hendriks; Anwar R Padhani; Martijn Hoogenboom; Patrik Zamecnik; Dirk Bakker; Anglita Yanti Setiasti; Jeroen Veltman; Huib van den Hout; Hans van der Lelij; Inge van Oort; Sjoerd Klaver; Frans Debruyne; Michiel Sedelaar; Gerjon Hannink; Maroeska Rovers; Christina Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-11-23 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Christian Arsov; Robert Rabenalt; Dirk Blondin; Michael Quentin; Andreas Hiester; Erhard Godehardt; Helmut E Gabbert; Nikolaus Becker; Gerald Antoch; Peter Albers; Lars Schimmöller Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-06-23 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Christopher P Filson; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J A Margolis; Jiaoti Huang; Patricia Lieu; Frederick J Dorey; Robert E Reiter; Leonard S Marks Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: James S Wysock; Neil Mendhiratta; Fabio Zattoni; Xiaosong Meng; Marc Bjurlin; William C Huang; Herbert Lepor; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Samir S Taneja Journal: BJU Int Date: 2016-02-25 Impact factor: 5.588
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: Piotr Zapała; Mieszko Kozikowski; Bartosz Dybowski; Łukasz Zapała; Jakub Dobruch; Piotr Radziszewski Journal: Cent European J Urol Date: 2021-09-18
Authors: Geert J L H van Leenders; Theodorus H van der Kwast; David J Grignon; Andrew J Evans; Glen Kristiansen; Charlotte F Kweldam; Geert Litjens; Jesse K McKenney; Jonathan Melamed; Nicholas Mottet; Gladell P Paner; Hemamali Samaratunga; Ivo G Schoots; Jeffry P Simko; Toyonori Tsuzuki; Murali Varma; Anne Y Warren; Thomas M Wheeler; Sean R Williamson; Kenneth A Iczkowski Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 6.298