Julie Buisset1, Joseph M Norris2, Philippe Puech3, Xavier Leroy4, Nassima Ramdane5,6, Elodie Drumez5,6, Arnauld Villers1,7, Jonathan Olivier1,7. 1. Department of Urology, Univ. Lille, Lille, France. 2. Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK. 3. Department of Radiology, Univ. Lille, Lille, France. 4. Department of Histopathology, Univ. Lille, Lille, France. 5. CHU Lille, Department of Biostatistics, Lille, France. 6. Univ. Lille, CHU Lille, ULR 2694-METRICS: Évaluation des Technologies de Santé et des Pratiques Médicales, Lille, France. 7. UMR8161/CNRS-Institut de Biologie de Lille, Lille, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prostate biopsy should be discussed with the patient in cases of negative magnetic resonance imaging and low clinical suspicion of prostate cancer.Our primary objective was to describe the risk of clinically significant prostate cancer in a negative magnetic resonance imaging biopsy naïve population at baseline and during long-term followup. The secondary objective was to evaluate clinical factors and prostate specific antigen as predictors of clinically significant prostate cancer at baseline. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All 503 consecutive patients who were biopsy naïve referred from 2007 to 2017 for biopsy with negative magnetic resonance imaging (PI-RADS™ 1-2) who had systematic 12-core biopsies at baseline were included. Clinical factors were digital rectal examination, prostate cancer family history and prostate specific antigen. In case of suspicious digital rectal examination or prostate specific antigen kinetics during followup, magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy were performed. Clinically significant prostate cancer was defined as either Gleason Grade 1 with cancer core length greater than 5 mm or 3 or more positive systematic 12-core biopsies in addition to Gleason Grade 2 or greater (clinically significant prostate cancer-1) or any Gleason Grade 2 or greater (clinically significant prostate cancer-2). Nonclinically significant prostate cancer was defined as either Gleason Grade 1 with cancer core length 5 mm or less and fewer than 3 positive systematic 12-core biopsies (nonclinically significant prostate cancer-1) or any Gleason Grade 1 (nonclinically significant prostate cancer-2). Definition of high risk clinically significant prostate cancer was Gleason Grade 3 or greater. Univariate and multivariate models were fitted to identify predictors of clinically significant prostate cancer risk. RESULTS: At baseline, biopsy showed clinically significant prostate cancer-1 in 9% (45), clinically significant prostate cancer-2 in 6% (29) and nonclinically significant prostate cancer in 22% (111). At median followup of 4 years (IQR 1.6-7.1), 31% (95% CI 27-36) of 415 untreated patients had a second magnetic resonance imaging and 24% (95% CI 20-28) a second biopsy that showed clinically significant prostate cancer-1 in 5% (21/415, 95% CI 3-7), clinically significant prostate cancer-2 in 2% (7/415, 95% CI 1-3) and nonclinically significant prostate cancer in 8%. Overall incidence was 13% (66/503, 95% CI 7-21) for clinically significant prostate cancer-1, 7% (36/503, 95% CI 5-9%) for clinically significant prostate cancer-2 and 2% (12/503, 95% CI 1.1-3.7) for high risk prostate cancer. Predictors of clinically significant prostate cancer risk were prostate specific antigen density 0.15 ng/ml/ml or greater (OR 2.43, 1.19-4.21), clinical stage T2a or greater (OR 3.32, 1.69-6.53) and prostate cancer family history (OR 2.38, 1.10-6.16). Performing biopsy in patients with negative magnetic resonance imaging and prostate specific antigen density 0.15 ng/ml/ml or greater or abnormal digital rectal examination or prostate cancer family history would have decreased from 9% to 2.4% the risk of missing clinically significant prostate cancer-1 at baseline while avoiding biopsy in 56% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of clinically significant prostate cancer in a negative magnetic resonance imaging biopsy naïve population was 6% to 9% at baseline and 7% to 13% at long-term followup depending on clinically significant prostate cancer definitions.
PURPOSE: Prostate biopsy should be discussed with the patient in cases of negative magnetic resonance imaging and low clinical suspicion of prostate cancer.Our primary objective was to describe the risk of clinically significant prostate cancer in a negative magnetic resonance imaging biopsy naïve population at baseline and during long-term followup. The secondary objective was to evaluate clinical factors and prostate specific antigen as predictors of clinically significant prostate cancer at baseline. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All 503 consecutive patients who were biopsy naïve referred from 2007 to 2017 for biopsy with negative magnetic resonance imaging (PI-RADS™ 1-2) who had systematic 12-core biopsies at baseline were included. Clinical factors were digital rectal examination, prostate cancer family history and prostate specific antigen. In case of suspicious digital rectal examination or prostate specific antigen kinetics during followup, magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy were performed. Clinically significant prostate cancer was defined as either Gleason Grade 1 with cancer core length greater than 5 mm or 3 or more positive systematic 12-core biopsies in addition to Gleason Grade 2 or greater (clinically significant prostate cancer-1) or any Gleason Grade 2 or greater (clinically significant prostate cancer-2). Nonclinically significant prostate cancer was defined as either Gleason Grade 1 with cancer core length 5 mm or less and fewer than 3 positive systematic 12-core biopsies (nonclinically significant prostate cancer-1) or any Gleason Grade 1 (nonclinically significant prostate cancer-2). Definition of high risk clinically significant prostate cancer was Gleason Grade 3 or greater. Univariate and multivariate models were fitted to identify predictors of clinically significant prostate cancer risk. RESULTS: At baseline, biopsy showed clinically significant prostate cancer-1 in 9% (45), clinically significant prostate cancer-2 in 6% (29) and nonclinically significant prostate cancer in 22% (111). At median followup of 4 years (IQR 1.6-7.1), 31% (95% CI 27-36) of 415 untreated patients had a second magnetic resonance imaging and 24% (95% CI 20-28) a second biopsy that showed clinically significant prostate cancer-1 in 5% (21/415, 95% CI 3-7), clinically significant prostate cancer-2 in 2% (7/415, 95% CI 1-3) and nonclinically significant prostate cancer in 8%. Overall incidence was 13% (66/503, 95% CI 7-21) for clinically significant prostate cancer-1, 7% (36/503, 95% CI 5-9%) for clinically significant prostate cancer-2 and 2% (12/503, 95% CI 1.1-3.7) for high risk prostate cancer. Predictors of clinically significant prostate cancer risk were prostate specific antigen density 0.15 ng/ml/ml or greater (OR 2.43, 1.19-4.21), clinical stage T2a or greater (OR 3.32, 1.69-6.53) and prostate cancer family history (OR 2.38, 1.10-6.16). Performing biopsy in patients with negative magnetic resonance imaging and prostate specific antigen density 0.15 ng/ml/ml or greater or abnormal digital rectal examination or prostate cancer family history would have decreased from 9% to 2.4% the risk of missing clinically significant prostate cancer-1 at baseline while avoiding biopsy in 56% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of clinically significant prostate cancer in a negative magnetic resonance imaging biopsy naïve population was 6% to 9% at baseline and 7% to 13% at long-term followup depending on clinically significant prostate cancer definitions.
Entities:
Keywords:
PSA density; Predictive factors; biopsy; negative MRI; prostate cancer
Authors: Mohammad Haroon; Paul Sathiadoss; Rodney H Breau; Ilias Cagiannos; Trevor Flood; Luke T Lavallee; Christopher Morash; Nicola Schieda Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2022-03 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Hossein Jadvar; Jeremie Calais; Stefano Fanti; Felix Feng; Kirsten L Greene; James L Gulley; Michael Hofman; Bridget F Koontz; Daniel W Lin; Michael J Morris; Steve P Rowe; Trevor J Royce; Simpa Salami; Bital Savir-Baruch; Sandy Srinivas; Thomas A Hope Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-09-30 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Alberto Artiles Medina; Rafael Rodríguez-Patrón Rodríguez; Mercedes Ruiz Hernández; Marina Mata Alcaraz; Silvia García Barreras; Guillermo Fernández Conejo; Agustín Fraile Poblador; Enrique Sanz Mayayo; Francisco Javier Burgos Revilla Journal: Res Rep Urol Date: 2021-09-27
Authors: Joseph M Norris; Lucy A M Simmons; Abi Kanthabalan; Alex Freeman; Neil McCartan; Caroline M Moore; Shonit Punwani; Hayley C Whitaker; Mark Emberton; Hashim U Ahmed Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2021-06-15