Andrew J Vickers1. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: vickersa@mskcc.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that targeting prostate lesions identified on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) will improve the sensitivity of prostate biopsy for high-grade disease. The clinical significance of high-grade tumors found on MRI but missed on systematic biopsy is open to question. OBJECTIVE: To determine the risk of mortality for high-grade cancers identified by MRI targeting in men who had benign systematic biopsy findings. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We used data from 999 men with negative systematic biopsy and concurrent MRI-targeted biopsy in the National Cancer Institute MRI study. The comparison group consisted of 3056 men followed for 11 yr after negative sextant biopsy in the European Randomized Trial of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We calculated the number of patients needed to be diagnosed (NND) and treated (NNT) following targeted biopsy in order to prevent one prostate cancer death at 11 yr. We used a simple modeling approach that involved several assumptions, such as the proportion of the deaths in ERSPC preventable by earlier detection with MRI-guided biopsy. We then varied these assumptions to assess the effects on the results. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: NND and NNT were 89 and 57 for the scenario involving assumptions favorable to MRI, and 169 and 127 for a more neutral set of assumptions, respectively. Results were only more encouraging for MRI targeting under unlikely scenarios, such as 100% sensitivity for MRI and a cure rate of 100% for treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Although MRI may be of benefit overall, considering the decrease in overdiagnosis among men with negative MRI findings, targeting biopsy needles to MRI-detected lesions results in a large number of men diagnosed and treated per death prevented. Consideration should be given to changing guidelines on grading of MRI cores and those regarding treatment of MRI-detected high-grade prostate cancer. PATIENT SUMMARY: We carried out a modeling study to assess how magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan results used to target prostate cancer lesions during biopsy can affect outcomes. The model results show that if MRI-visible tumors are targeted during prostate biopsy, a large number of men need to be diagnosed and treated for prostate cancer in order to avoid just one prostate cancer death.
BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that targeting prostate lesions identified on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) will improve the sensitivity of prostate biopsy for high-grade disease. The clinical significance of high-grade tumors found on MRI but missed on systematic biopsy is open to question. OBJECTIVE: To determine the risk of mortality for high-grade cancers identified by MRI targeting in men who had benign systematic biopsy findings. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We used data from 999 men with negative systematic biopsy and concurrent MRI-targeted biopsy in the National Cancer Institute MRI study. The comparison group consisted of 3056 men followed for 11 yr after negative sextant biopsy in the European Randomized Trial of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We calculated the number of patients needed to be diagnosed (NND) and treated (NNT) following targeted biopsy in order to prevent one prostate cancer death at 11 yr. We used a simple modeling approach that involved several assumptions, such as the proportion of the deaths in ERSPC preventable by earlier detection with MRI-guided biopsy. We then varied these assumptions to assess the effects on the results. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: NND and NNT were 89 and 57 for the scenario involving assumptions favorable to MRI, and 169 and 127 for a more neutral set of assumptions, respectively. Results were only more encouraging for MRI targeting under unlikely scenarios, such as 100% sensitivity for MRI and a cure rate of 100% for treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Although MRI may be of benefit overall, considering the decrease in overdiagnosis among men with negative MRI findings, targeting biopsy needles to MRI-detected lesions results in a large number of men diagnosed and treated per death prevented. Consideration should be given to changing guidelines on grading of MRI cores and those regarding treatment of MRI-detected high-grade prostate cancer. PATIENT SUMMARY: We carried out a modeling study to assess how magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan results used to target prostate cancer lesions during biopsy can affect outcomes. The model results show that if MRI-visible tumors are targeted during prostate biopsy, a large number of men need to be diagnosed and treated for prostate cancer in order to avoid just one prostate cancer death.
Authors: Nina Klemann; M Andreas Røder; J Thomas Helgstrand; Klaus Brasso; Birgitte G Toft; Ben Vainer; Peter Iversen Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-01-14 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Niranjan J Sathianathen; Altan Omer; Eli Harriss; Lucy Davies; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Shonit Punwani; Caroline M Moore; Christof Kastner; Tristan Barrett; Roderick Cn Van Den Bergh; Ben A Eddy; Fergus Gleeson; Ruth Macpherson; Richard J Bryant; James W F Catto; Declan G Murphy; Freddie C Hamdy; Hashim U Ahmed; Alastair D Lamb Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Fritz H Schröder; Jonas Hugosson; Monique J Roobol; Teuvo L J Tammela; Stefano Ciatto; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marcos Lujan; Hans Lilja; Marco Zappa; Louis J Denis; Franz Recker; Antonio Berenguer; Liisa Määttänen; Chris H Bangma; Gunnar Aus; Arnauld Villers; Xavier Rebillard; Theodorus van der Kwast; Bert G Blijenberg; Sue M Moss; Harry J de Koning; Anssi Auvinen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-03-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Anna Bill-Axelson; Lars Holmberg; Hans Garmo; Jennifer R Rider; Kimmo Taari; Christer Busch; Stig Nordling; Michael Häggman; Swen-Olof Andersson; Anders Spångberg; Ove Andrén; Juni Palmgren; Gunnar Steineck; Hans-Olov Adami; Jan-Erik Johansson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Fritz H Schröder; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Tineke Wolters; Pim J van Leeuwen; Chris H Bangma; Theo H van der Kwast; Monique J Roobol Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-11-06 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Timothy J Wilt; Tien N Vo; Lisa Langsetmo; Philipp Dahm; Thomas Wheeler; William J Aronson; Matthew R Cooperberg; Brent C Taylor; Michael K Brawer Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-02-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Sigrid Carlsson; Nicole Benfante; Ricardo Alvim; Daniel D Sjoberg; Andrew Vickers; Victor E Reuter; Samson W Fine; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Michal Wiseman; Maha Mamoor; Behfar Ehdaie; Vincent Laudone; Peter Scardino; James Eastham; Karim Touijer Journal: J Urol Date: 2020-01-07 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Sanoj Punnen; Radka Stoyanova; Deukwoo Kwon; Isildinha M Reis; Nachiketh Soodana-Prakash; Chad R Ritch; Bruno Nahar; Mark L Gonzalgo; Bruce Kava; Yang Liu; Himanshu Arora; Sandra M Gaston; Rosa P Castillo Acosta; Alan Dal Pra; Matthew Abramowitz; Oleksandr N Kryvenko; Elai Davicioni; Alan Pollack; Dipen J Parekh Journal: J Urol Date: 2020-12-24 Impact factor: 7.450
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
Authors: Chengyue Wu; Guillermo Lorenzo; David A Hormuth; Ernesto A B F Lima; Kalina P Slavkova; Julie C DiCarlo; John Virostko; Caleb M Phillips; Debra Patt; Caroline Chung; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: Biophys Rev (Melville) Date: 2022-05-17
Authors: Artitaya Lophatananon; Matthew H V Byrne; Tristan Barrett; Anne Warren; Kenneth Muir; Ibifuro Dokubo; Fanos Georgiades; Mostafa Sheba; Lisa Bibby; Vincent J Gnanapragasam Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-08-11 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Jacob Fredsøe; Martin Rasmussen; Amy L Tin; Andrew J Vickers; Michael Borre; Karina D Sørensen; Hans Lilja Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-09-07 Impact factor: 4.996