MRI ultrasound fusion biopsy in prostate cancer detection: Are randomized clinical trials reproducible in everyday clinical practice?

Abstract

Introduction:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)–ultrasound (US) fusion-targeted biopsies (TB) in men with primary and repeated biopsies comparing the cancer detection rate (CDR) of random biopsies (RB) + TB versus only TB.

Methods:

The present study is a real-life study on patients with primary and prior negative prostate biopsies with suspicious PCa. A total of 130 men with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value >2.5 ng/dL and/or abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) were included in the study and subjected to mpMRI. Patients with >2 previous biopsies and/or with ⩾3 suspected lesions on MRI and/or prostate imaging-reporting and data system (PIRADS) value ⩾4 (n:30 pts) were subjected only to TB on the areas indicated by mpMRI. All the other patients (n:70 pts) were subjected to standard random laterally directed 10-core plus TB on the areas indicated by mpMRI.

Results:

The overall CDR was 53% (53/100). In relation to PIRADS score, the overall CDR was 0, 40% (12/30), 56.83% (29/51), and 84% (11/13) for PIRADS 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. According to biopsy modality, CDR for RB + TB was 50% (35/70) and CDR for TB was 60% (18/30) with a p-value of 0.3632.

Discussion:

MRI–US fusion biopsy is associated with a high CDR of clinically significant PCa (csPCa). MRI–US fusion biopsy could be a reasonable approach in patients with previous negative biopsy and high PIRADS score on MRI, to ensure a high CDR of csPCa and to reduce the diagnosis of clinically insignificant tumors.

Keywords

Prostate cancer multiparametric magnetic resonance random biopsy targeted biopsy clinically significant tumor

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Siegel

Miller

Jemal

. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin 2016; 66(1): 7–30.

EAU Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Copenhagen 2018. ISBN 978-94-92671-01-1.

Zackrisson

Aus

Bergdahl

et al . The risk of finding focal cancer (less than 3 mm) remains high on re-biopsy of patients with persistently increased prostate specific antigen but the clinical significance is questionable. J Urol 2004; 171(4): 1500–1503.

de Rooij

Hamoen

Witjes

et al . Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for local staging of prostate cancer: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2016; 70: 233–245.

American Urological Association. White Paper: AUA/Optimal Techniques of Prostate Biopsy and Specimen Handling.

Valerio

Donaldson

Emberton

et al . Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2015; 68(1): 8–19.

Siddiqui

Rais-Bahrami

Turkbey

et al . Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 2015; 313(4): 390–397.

Cash

Maxeiner

Stephan

et al . The detection of significant prostate cancer is correlated with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) in MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. World J Urol 2015; 34: 525–532.

Borkowetz

Platzek

Toma

et al . Comparison of systematic transrectal biopsy to transperineal magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. BJU Int 2015; 116(6): 873–879.

10.

Siddiqui

Rais-Bahrami

Truong

et al . Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol 2013; 64(5): 713–719.

11.

Kasivisvanathan

Dufour

Moore

et al . Transperineal magnetic resonance image targeted prostate biopsy versus transperineal template prostate biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. J Urol 2013; 189(3): 860–866.

12.

van den Bergh

van der Poel

. Re: Siddiqui

Rais-Bahrami

Truong

et al . Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol 2013;64:713–9 and Re: Emberton M. Has magnetic resonance-guided biopsy of the prostate become the standard of care? Eur Urol 2013; 64:720–1. Eur Urol 2014; 65(6): e106–e107.

13.

Epstein

Egevad

Amin

et al . The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 2016; 40(2): 244–252.

14.

Schröder

Hugosson

Roobol

et al . Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up. N Engl J Med 2012; 366(11): 981–990.

15.

Sciarra

Barentsz

Bjartell

et al . Advances in magnetic resonance imaging: how they are changing the management of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2011; 59(6): 962–977.

16.

Rowe

Gorin

Allaf

et al . PET imaging of prostate-specific membrane antigen in prostate cancer: current state of the art and future challenges. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2016; 19(3): 223–230.

17.

Sciarra

Panebianco

Ciccariello

et al . Value of magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging for detecting prostate cancer foci in men with prior negative biopsy. Clin Cancer Res 2010; 16(6): 1875–1883.

18.

Rizzo

Carteni

Pappagallo

. We need both randomized trials and real-world data: the example of everolimus as second-line therapy for mRCC. Future Oncol 2014; 10(12): 1893–1896.

19.

Ting

Van Leeuwen

Thompson

et al . Assessment of the performance of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy against a combined targeted plus systematic biopsy approach using 24-core transperineal template saturation mapping prostate biopsy. Prostate Cancer 2016; 2016: 3794738.

20.

Radtke

Kuru

Bonekamp

et al . Further reduction of disqualification rates by additional MRI-targeted biopsy with transperineal saturation biopsy compared with standard 12-core systematic biopsies for the selection of prostate cancer patients for active surveillance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2016; 19(3): 283–291.

21.

Mozer

Rouprêt

LeCossec

et al . First round of targeted biopsies using magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion compared with conventional transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsies for the diagnosis of localised prostate cancer. BJU Int 2015; 115(1): 50–57.

22.

Sonn

Chang

Natarajan

et al . Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Eur Urol 2014; 65(4): 809–815.

23.

Arsov

Rabenalt

Blondin

et al . Prospective randomized trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided in-bore biopsy to MRI-ultrasound fusion and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol 2015; 68(4): 713–720.

24.

Hansen

Koo

Gallagher

et al . Comparison of initial and tertiary centre second opinion reads of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate prior to repeat biopsy. Eur Radiol 2016; 27: 2259–2266.