Dominik Deniffel1,2,3, Nathan Perlis4, Sangeet Ghai3, Stephanie Girgis5, Gerard M Healy2,3, Neil Fleshner4, Robert Hamilton4, Girish Kulkarni4, Ants Toi3, Theodorus van der Kwast6, Alexandre Zlotta4,7, Antonio Finelli4, Masoom A Haider8,9. 1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. 2. Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, 600 University Avenue, M5G 1X5, Toronto, ON, Canada. 3. Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Sinai Health System and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. University of Liverpool School of Medicine, Liverpool, UK. 6. Department of Pathology, Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. 7. Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. 8. Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, 600 University Avenue, M5G 1X5, Toronto, ON, Canada. mahaider@radfiler.com. 9. Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Sinai Health System and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. mahaider@radfiler.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to develop and compare strategies that help optimize current prostate biopsy practice by identifying patients who may forgo concurrent systematic biopsy (SBx) in favor of MRI-targeted (TBx) alone. METHODS: Retrospective study on 745 patients who underwent combined MRI-TBx plus SBx. Primary outcome was the upgrade to clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa; grade group ≥ 2) on SBx versus MRI-TBx. Variables (age, previous biopsy status, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score, index lesion size/location, number of lesions, PSA, PSA density, prostate volume) associated with the primary outcome were identified by logistic regression and used for biopsy strategies. Clinical utility was assessed by decision curve analysis (DCA). RESULTS: SBx detected 47 (6%) additional men with csPCa. The risk of detecting csPCa uniquely on SBx was significantly lower in men with PI-RADS 5 (versus PI-RADS 3: OR 0.30, p = 0.03; versus PI-RADS 4: OR 0.33, p = 0.01), and previous negative biopsy (versus previous positive biopsy: OR 0.40, p = 0.007), and increased with age (per 10 years: OR 1.64, p = 0.016). No significant association was observed for other variables. DCA identified the following strategies as most useful: (a) avoid SBx in men with PI-RADS 5 and (b) additionally in those with previous negative biopsy, resulting in avoiding SBx in 201 (27%) and 429 (58%), while missing csPCa in 5 (1%) and 15 (2%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Not all men benefit equally from the combination of SBx and MRI-TBx. SBx avoidance in men with PI-RADS 5 and/or previous negative biopsy may reduce the risk of excess biopsies with a low risk of missing csPCa. KEY POINTS: • In men undergoing MRI-targeted biopsy, the risk of detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) only on additional systematic biopsy (SBx) decreased in men with PI-RADS 5, previous negative biopsy, and younger age. • Using these variables may help select men who could avoid the risk of excess SBx. • If missing csPCa in 5% was acceptable, forgoing SBx in men with PI-RADS 5 and/or previous negative biopsy enabled the highest net reduction in SBx.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to develop and compare strategies that help optimize current prostate biopsy practice by identifying patients who may forgo concurrent systematic biopsy (SBx) in favor of MRI-targeted (TBx) alone. METHODS: Retrospective study on 745 patients who underwent combined MRI-TBx plus SBx. Primary outcome was the upgrade to clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa; grade group ≥ 2) on SBx versus MRI-TBx. Variables (age, previous biopsy status, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score, index lesion size/location, number of lesions, PSA, PSA density, prostate volume) associated with the primary outcome were identified by logistic regression and used for biopsy strategies. Clinical utility was assessed by decision curve analysis (DCA). RESULTS: SBx detected 47 (6%) additional men with csPCa. The risk of detecting csPCa uniquely on SBx was significantly lower in men with PI-RADS 5 (versus PI-RADS 3: OR 0.30, p = 0.03; versus PI-RADS 4: OR 0.33, p = 0.01), and previous negative biopsy (versus previous positive biopsy: OR 0.40, p = 0.007), and increased with age (per 10 years: OR 1.64, p = 0.016). No significant association was observed for other variables. DCA identified the following strategies as most useful: (a) avoid SBx in men with PI-RADS 5 and (b) additionally in those with previous negative biopsy, resulting in avoiding SBx in 201 (27%) and 429 (58%), while missing csPCa in 5 (1%) and 15 (2%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Not all men benefit equally from the combination of SBx and MRI-TBx. SBx avoidance in men with PI-RADS 5 and/or previous negative biopsy may reduce the risk of excess biopsies with a low risk of missing csPCa. KEY POINTS: • In men undergoing MRI-targeted biopsy, the risk of detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) only on additional systematic biopsy (SBx) decreased in men with PI-RADS 5, previous negative biopsy, and younger age. • Using these variables may help select men who could avoid the risk of excess SBx. • If missing csPCa in 5% was acceptable, forgoing SBx in men with PI-RADS 5 and/or previous negative biopsy enabled the highest net reduction in SBx.
Authors: Marc A Bjurlin; Peter R Carroll; Scott Eggener; Pat F Fulgham; Daniel J Margolis; Peter A Pinto; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Jonathan N Rubenstein; Daniel B Rukstalis; Samir S Taneja; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 7.450
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: Olivier Wegelin; Leonie Exterkate; Marloes van der Leest; Johannes C Kelder; J L H Ruud Bosch; Jelle O Barentsz; Diederik M Somford; Harm H E van Melick Journal: Eur Urol Oncol Date: 2019-09-11
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: Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2018-08-13 Impact factor: 5.554
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: 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: Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Antti S Rannikko; Marcelo Borghi; Valeria Panebianco; Lance A Mynderse; Markku H Vaarala; Alberto Briganti; Lars Budäus; Giles Hellawell; Richard G Hindley; Monique J Roobol; Scott Eggener; Maneesh Ghei; Arnauld Villers; Franck Bladou; Geert M Villeirs; Jaspal Virdi; Silvan Boxler; Grégoire Robert; Paras B Singh; Wulphert Venderink; Boris A Hadaschik; Alain Ruffion; Jim C Hu; Daniel Margolis; Sébastien Crouzet; Laurence Klotz; Samir S Taneja; Peter Pinto; Inderbir Gill; Clare Allen; Francesco Giganti; Alex Freeman; Stephen Morris; Shonit Punwani; Norman R Williams; Chris Brew-Graves; Jonathan Deeks; Yemisi Takwoingi; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-03-18 Impact factor: 176.079