Michael Ahdoot1, Amir H Lebastchi2, Lori Long3, Andrew R Wilbur2, Patrick T Gomella2, Sherif Mehralivand4, Michael A Daneshvar2, Nitin K Yerram2, Luke P O'Connor2, Alex Z Wang2, Sandeep Gurram2, Jonathan Bloom2, M Minhaj Siddiqui5, W Marston Linehan2, Maria Merino6, Peter L Choyke7, Paul Pinsky8, Howard Parnes8, Joanna H Shih3, Baris Turkbey7, Bradford J Wood9, Peter A Pinto2. 1. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. Electronic address: michael.ahdoot@cshs.org. 2. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 3. Biometric Research Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 4. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA; Molecular Imaging Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 5. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 6. Translational Surgical Pathology Section, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 7. Molecular Imaging Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 8. Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 9. Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA; Interventional Radiology, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy (TBx) results in better prostate cancer (PCa) detection relative to systematic biopsy (SBx), the combination of both methods increases clinically significant PCa detection relative to either Bx method alone. However, combined Bx subjects patients to higher number of Bx cores and greater detection of clinically insignificant PCa. OBJECTIVE: To determine if prebiopsy prostate MRI can identify men who could forgo combined Bx without a substantial risk of missing clinically significant PCa (csPC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Men with MRI-visible prostate lesions underwent combined TBx plus SBx. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcomes were detection rates for grade group (GG) ≥2 and GG ≥3 PCa by TBx and SBx, stratified by Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among PI-RADS 5 cases, nearly all csPCs were detected by TBx, as adding SBx resulted in detection of only 2.5% more GG ≥2 cancers. Among PI-RADS 3-4 cases, however, SBx addition resulted in detection of substantially more csPCs than TBx alone (8% vs 7.5%). Conversely, TBx added little to detection of csPC among men with PI-RADS 2 lesions (2%) relative to SBx (7.8%). CONCLUSIONS: While combined Bx increases the detection of csPC among men with MRI-visible prostate lesions, this benefit was largely restricted to PI-RADS 3-4 lesions. Using a strategy of TBx only for PI-RADS 5 and combined Bx only for PI-RADS 3-4 would avoid excess biopsies for men with PI-RADS 5 lesions while resulting in a low risk of missing csPC (1%). PATIENT SUMMARY: Our study investigated an optimized strategy to diagnose aggressive prostate cancer in men with an abnormal prostate MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scan while minimizing the risk of excess biopsies. We used a scoring system for MRI scan images called PI-RADS. The results show that MRI-targeted biopsies alone could be used for men with a PI-RADS score of 5, while men with a PI-RADS score of 3 or 4 would benefit from a combination of MRI-targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT00102544. Published by Elsevier B.V.
BACKGROUND: While magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy (TBx) results in better prostate cancer (PCa) detection relative to systematic biopsy (SBx), the combination of both methods increases clinically significant PCa detection relative to either Bx method alone. However, combined Bx subjects patients to higher number of Bx cores and greater detection of clinically insignificant PCa. OBJECTIVE: To determine if prebiopsy prostate MRI can identify men who could forgo combined Bx without a substantial risk of missing clinically significant PCa (csPC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Men with MRI-visible prostate lesions underwent combined TBx plus SBx. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcomes were detection rates for grade group (GG) ≥2 and GG ≥3 PCa by TBx and SBx, stratified by Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among PI-RADS 5 cases, nearly all csPCs were detected by TBx, as adding SBx resulted in detection of only 2.5% more GG ≥2 cancers. Among PI-RADS 3-4 cases, however, SBx addition resulted in detection of substantially more csPCs than TBx alone (8% vs 7.5%). Conversely, TBx added little to detection of csPC among men with PI-RADS 2 lesions (2%) relative to SBx (7.8%). CONCLUSIONS: While combined Bx increases the detection of csPC among men with MRI-visible prostate lesions, this benefit was largely restricted to PI-RADS 3-4 lesions. Using a strategy of TBx only for PI-RADS 5 and combined Bx only for PI-RADS 3-4 would avoid excess biopsies for men with PI-RADS 5 lesions while resulting in a low risk of missing csPC (1%). PATIENT SUMMARY: Our study investigated an optimized strategy to diagnose aggressive prostate cancer in men with an abnormal prostate MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) scan while minimizing the risk of excess biopsies. We used a scoring system for MRI scan images called PI-RADS. The results show that MRI-targeted biopsies alone could be used for men with a PI-RADS score of 5, while men with a PI-RADS score of 3 or 4 would benefit from a combination of MRI-targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT00102544. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Entities:
Keywords:
Combined biopsy; Fusion biopsy; Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System; Prostate cancer; Prostate cancer diagnosis; Prostate magnetic resonance imaging
Authors: Armando Stabile; Paolo Dell'Oglio; Francesco De Cobelli; Antonio Esposito; Giorgio Gandaglia; Nicola Fossati; Giorgio Brembilla; Giulia Cristel; Gianpiero Cardone; Federico Deho'; Andrea Losa; Nazareno Suardi; Franco Gaboardi; Alessandro Del Maschio; Francesco Montorsi; Alberto Briganti Journal: Eur Urol Oncol Date: 2018-05-15
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: Sherif Mehralivand; Sandra Bednarova; Joanna H Shih; Francesca V Mertan; Sonia Gaur; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Vincent J Gnanapragasam; Kelly Leonard; Michal Sut; Cristian Ilie; Jonathan Ord; Jacques Roux; Maria Consuelo Hart Prieto; Anne Warren; Priya Tamer Journal: J Clin Urol Date: 2020-06-12