Cheyenne Williams1, Michael Ahdoot1, Michael A Daneshvar1, Christian Hague1, Andrew R Wilbur1, Patrick T Gomella1, Joanna Shih2, Nabila Khondakar1, Nitin Yerram1, Sherif Mehralivand3, Sandeep Gurram1, Minhaj Siddiqui4, Paul Pinsky5, Howard Parnes5, Maria Merino6, Bradford Wood7, Baris Turkbey3, Peter A Pinto1. 1. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 2. Biometric Research Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 3. Molecular Imaging Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 4. Director of Urologic Oncology and Robotic Surgery, VA Medical Center, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland. 5. Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 6. Translational Surgical Pathology Section, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 7. Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, & Interventional Radiology, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Multiple studies demonstrate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy detects more clinically significant cancer than systematic biopsy; however, some clinically significant cancers are detected by systematic biopsy only. While these events are rare, we sought to perform a retrospective analysis of these cases to ascertain the reasons that MRI-targeted biopsy missed clinically significant cancer which was subsequently detected on systematic prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were enrolled in a prospective study comparing cancer detection rates by transrectal MRI-targeted fusion biopsy and systematic 12-core biopsy. Patients with an elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA), abnormal digital rectal examination, or imaging findings concerning for prostate cancer underwent prostate MRI and subsequent MRI-targeted and systematic biopsy in the same setting. The subset of patients with grade group (GG) ≥3 cancer found on systematic biopsy and GG ≤2 cancer (or no cancer) on MRI-targeted biopsy was classified as MRI-targeted biopsy misses. A retrospective analysis of the MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy real-time screen captures determined the cause of MRI-targeted biopsy miss. Multivariable logistic regression analysis compared baseline characteristics of patients with MRI-targeted biopsy misses to GG-matched patients whose clinically significant cancer was detected by MRI-targeted biopsy. RESULTS: Over the study period of 2007 to 2019, 2,103 patients met study inclusion criteria and underwent combined MRI-targeted and systematic prostate biopsies. A total of 41 (1.9%) men were classified as MRI-targeted biopsy misses. Most MRI-targeted biopsy misses were due to errors in lesion targeting (21, 51.2%), followed by MRI-invisible lesions (17, 40.5%) and MRI lesions missed by the radiologist (3, 7.1%). On logistic regression analysis, lower Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADSTM) score was associated with having clinically significant cancer missed on MRI-targeted biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: While uncommon, most MRI-targeted biopsy misses are due to errors in lesion targeting, which highlights the importance of accurate co-registration and targeting when using software-based fusion platforms. Additionally, some patients will harbor MRI-invisible lesions which are untargetable by MRI-targeted platforms. The presence of a low PI-RADS score despite a high PSA is suggestive of harboring an MRI-invisible lesion.
PURPOSE: Multiple studies demonstrate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy detects more clinically significant cancer than systematic biopsy; however, some clinically significant cancers are detected by systematic biopsy only. While these events are rare, we sought to perform a retrospective analysis of these cases to ascertain the reasons that MRI-targeted biopsy missed clinically significant cancer which was subsequently detected on systematic prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were enrolled in a prospective study comparing cancer detection rates by transrectal MRI-targeted fusion biopsy and systematic 12-core biopsy. Patients with an elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA), abnormal digital rectal examination, or imaging findings concerning for prostate cancer underwent prostate MRI and subsequent MRI-targeted and systematic biopsy in the same setting. The subset of patients with grade group (GG) ≥3 cancer found on systematic biopsy and GG ≤2 cancer (or no cancer) on MRI-targeted biopsy was classified as MRI-targeted biopsy misses. A retrospective analysis of the MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy real-time screen captures determined the cause of MRI-targeted biopsy miss. Multivariable logistic regression analysis compared baseline characteristics of patients with MRI-targeted biopsy misses to GG-matched patients whose clinically significant cancer was detected by MRI-targeted biopsy. RESULTS: Over the study period of 2007 to 2019, 2,103 patients met study inclusion criteria and underwent combined MRI-targeted and systematic prostate biopsies. A total of 41 (1.9%) men were classified as MRI-targeted biopsy misses. Most MRI-targeted biopsy misses were due to errors in lesion targeting (21, 51.2%), followed by MRI-invisible lesions (17, 40.5%) and MRI lesions missed by the radiologist (3, 7.1%). On logistic regression analysis, lower Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADSTM) score was associated with having clinically significant cancer missed on MRI-targeted biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: While uncommon, most MRI-targeted biopsy misses are due to errors in lesion targeting, which highlights the importance of accurate co-registration and targeting when using software-based fusion platforms. Additionally, some patients will harbor MRI-invisible lesions which are untargetable by MRI-targeted platforms. The presence of a low PI-RADS score despite a high PSA is suggestive of harboring an MRI-invisible lesion.
Entities:
Keywords:
biopsy; diagnosis; multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging; prostatic neoplasms
Authors: Simpa S Salami; Eran Ben-Levi; Oksana Yaskiv; Laura Ryniker; Baris Turkbey; Louis R Kavoussi; Robert Villani; Ardeshir R Rastinehad Journal: BJU Int Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Hari Trivedi; Baris Turkbey; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Compton J Benjamin; Marcelino Bernardo; Thomas Pohida; Vijay Shah; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; W Marston Linehan; Aradhana M Venkatesan; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: Urology Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Michael Austin Coker; Zachary A Glaser; Jennifer B Gordetsky; John V Thomas; Soroush Rais-Bahrami Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2018-07-09 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Samuel A Gold; Graham R Hale; Jonathan B Bloom; Clayton P Smith; Kareem N Rayn; Vladimir Valera; Bradford J Wood; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-05-21 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Matthew Truong; Gary Hollenberg; Eric Weinberg; Edward M Messing; Hiroshi Miyamoto; Thomas P Frye Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-02-03 Impact factor: 7.450
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: Gabriele Gaziev; Karan Wadhwa; Tristan Barrett; Brendan C Koo; Ferdia A Gallagher; Eva Serrao; Julia Frey; Jonas Seidenader; Lina Carmona; Anne Warren; Vincent Gnanapragasam; Andrew Doble; Christof Kastner Journal: BJU Int Date: 2015-05-11 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Joseph M Norris; Lina M Carmona Echeverria; Simon R J Bott; Louise C Brown; Nick Burns-Cox; Tim Dudderidge; Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily; Eleni Frangou; Alex Freeman; Maneesh Ghei; Alastair Henderson; Richard G Hindley; Richard S Kaplan; Alex Kirkham; Robert Oldroyd; Chris Parker; Raj Persad; Shonit Punwani; Derek J Rosario; Iqbal S Shergill; Vasilis Stavrinides; Mathias Winkler; Hayley C Whitaker; Hashim U Ahmed; Mark Emberton Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Dominik Deniffel; Nathan Perlis; Sangeet Ghai; Stephanie Girgis; Gerard M Healy; Neil Fleshner; Robert Hamilton; Girish Kulkarni; Ants Toi; Theodorus van der Kwast; Alexandre Zlotta; Antonio Finelli; Masoom A Haider Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-05-04 Impact factor: 7.034
Authors: Marinus J Hagens; Mar Fernandez Salamanca; Anwar R Padhani; Pim J van Leeuwen; Henk G van der Poel; Ivo G Schoots Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2022-05-02
Authors: Rui Miguel Marques Bernardino; Ricardo Leão; Rui Henrique; Luis Campos Pinheiro; Prashant Kumar; Prashanth Suravajhala; Hans Christian Beck; Ana Sofia Carvalho; Rune Matthiesen Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-12-19 Impact factor: 5.923