Can multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen density accurately stratify patients prior to prostate biopsy?

Abstract

Objective:

This study examines the diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in a high-volume centre to potentially stratify patients prior to prostate biopsy.

Methods:

All biopsy naïve patients who had mpMRI prostate and transperineal biopsy of prostate (TPBx) in 2017 and 2018 were included. There were no exclusion criteria. All patients, regardless of the mpMRI result, underwent systematic template biopsy under general anaesthesia with cognitive target biopsy if indicated. Clinicopathological data were extracted from medical records. The primary outcome was the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of mpMRI prostate in the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) compared with template TPBx.

Results:

In total, 140 patients were included. Overall, 57.1% had a positive biopsy. A higher Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data Systems (PI-RADS) score was associated with a higher risk of diagnosing clinically significant PCa (International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) ⩾ 2) (p < 0.001). The sensitivity, specificity, NPV, and PPV of mpMRI in detecting clinically significant PCa with a PI-RADS ⩾ 3 lesion, was 95% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83.0–99.3%), 41% (95% CI 31.3–51.3%), 95.3% (95% CI 84.2–99.4%) and 39.2% (95% CI 29.4–49.6%), respectively. Combining this with prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) of <0.15 further improved the NPV to 100% (86.3–100). Binomial logistic regression to understand the effects of PSA, DRE and PI-RADS score on predicting clinically significant PCa (ISUP ⩾ 2) found increasing PSA (odds ratio (OR) 1.06, (95% CI 1.00–1.11, p = 0.022)) and PI-RADS (OR 3.17, (95% CI 1.94–5.18, p < 0.001)) to be significant predictors. Malignant DRE was not a significant predictor (p = 0.087).

Conclusion:

This study demonstrates that the high sensitivity and NPV of mpMRI combined with PSAD may play a pivotal role in stratifying men for prostate biopsy and help avoid biopsy and its associated morbidity in select patients.

Level of Evidence:

2b (Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine: Levels of Evidence)

Keywords

Prostate cancer multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging prostate-specific antigen density transperineal biopsy radiology

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Cancer in Australia. Canberra, ACT, Australia: AIHW, 2019.

Loeb

Vellekoop

Ahmed

, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 2013; 64(6): 876–892.

Meermeier

Foster

Liu

, et al. Impact of direct MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate on clinical management. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2019; 213(2): 371–376.

Ahmed

El-Shater Bosaily

Brown

, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017; 389(10071): 815–822.

Sathianathen

Omer

Harriss

, et al. Negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in the prostate imaging reporting and data system era: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2020; 78(3): 402–414.

Moldovan

Van den Broeck

Sylvester

, et al. What is the negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in excluding prostate cancer at biopsy? A systematic review and meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol 2017; 72(2): 250–266.

Mottet

Bellmunt

Bolla

, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer – part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2017; 71(4): 618–629.

Team NGU. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: clinical guidelines – prostate cancer: diagnosis and management. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2019.

Grummet

Weerakoon

Huang

, et al. Sepsis and ‘superbugs’: should we favour the transperineal over the transrectal approach for prostate biopsy. BJU Int 2014; 114(3): 384–388.

10.

Guo

, et al. Comparison between Ultrasound guided transperineal and transrectal prostate biopsy: a prospective, randomized, and controlled trial. Sci Rep 2015; 5: 16089.

11.

Nam

Saskin

Lee

, et al. Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 2013; 189(Suppl. 1): S12–S17; discussion S17–S18.

12.

Pepe

Aragona

. Morbidity after transperineal prostate biopsy in 3000 patients undergoing 12 vs 18 vs more than 24 needle cores. Urology 2013; 81(6): 1142–1146.

13.

Seitz

Stief

Waidelich

, et al. Transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in the era of increasing fluoroquinolone resistance: prophylaxis with single-dose ertapenem. World J Urol 2017; 35(11): 1681–1688.

14.

Skouteris

Crawford

Mouraviev

, et al. Transrectal ultrasound-guided versus transperineal mapping prostate biopsy: complication comparison. Rev Urol 2018; 20(1): 19–25.

15.

Filippou

Welty

Cowan

, et al. Immediate versus delayed radical prostatectomy: updated outcomes following active surveillance of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2015; 68(3): 458–463.

16.

Adamy

Yee

Matsushita

, et al. Role of prostate specific antigen and immediate confirmatory biopsy in predicting progression during active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2011; 185(2): 477–482.

17.

Satasivam

Poon

Ehdaie

, et al. Can Confirmatory biopsy be omitted in patients with prostate cancer favorable diagnostic features on active surveillance. J Urol 2016; 195(1): 74–79.

18.

Alvisi

Repetto

Rancati

, et al. Italian cultural adaptation of the Memorial Anxiety for Prostate Cancer Scale for the population of men on active surveillance. Tumori 2018; 104(3): 172–178.

19.

Anderson

Burney

Brooker

, et al. Anxiety in the management of localised prostate cancer by active surveillance. BJU Int 2014; 114(Suppl. 1): 55–61

20.

Bellardita

Valdagni

van den Bergh

, et al. How does active surveillance for prostate cancer affect quality of life? A systematic review. Eur Urol 2015; 67(4): 637–645.

21.

Marzouk

Assel

Ehdaie

, et al. Long-term cancer specific anxiety in men undergoing active surveillance of prostate cancer: findings from a large prospective cohort. J Urol 2018; 200(6): 1250–1255.

22.

Ruane-McAteer

Porter

O’Sullivan

, et al. Investigating the psychological impact of active surveillance or active treatment in newly diagnosed favorable-risk prostate cancer patients: a 9-month longitudinal study. Psychooncology 2019; 28(8): 1743–1752.

23.

Tan

Marks

Hoyt

, et al. The relationship between intolerance of uncertainty and anxiety in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer. J Urol 2016; 195(6): 1724–1730.

24.

Gavin

Kam

Krelle

, et al. Quantifying the effect of location matching on accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging prior to prostate biopsy – a multicentre study. Eur Urol Open Sci 2020; 20: 28–36.

25.

Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia. PSA testing and early management of test-detected prostate cancer: clinical and practice guidelines. Sydney NSW, Australia: Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, 2016.

26.

Stonier

Simson

Shah

, et al. The ‘is mpMRI enough’ or IMRIE Study: A multicentre evaluation of prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging compared with biopsy. Eur Urol Focus 2021; 7(5): 1027–1034.

27.

Ong

Weerakoon

Huang

, et al. Transperineal biopsy prostate cancer detection in first biopsy and repeat biopsy after negative transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: the Victorian Transperineal Biopsy Collaboration experience. BJU Int 2015; 116(4): 568–576.

28.

Nelson

O’Meara

Kerlikowske

, et al. Factors associated with rates of false-positive and false-negative results from digital mammography screening: an analysis of registry data. Ann Intern Med 2016; 164(4): 226–235.

29.

De Rooij

Israël

Tummers

, et al. ESUR/ESUI consensus statements on multi-parametric MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: quality requirements for image acquisition, interpretation and radiologists’ training. Eur Radiol 2020; 30(10): 5404–5416.

30.

Distler

Radtke

Bonekamp

, et al. The value of PSA density in combination with PI-RADS for the accuracy of prostate cancer prediction. J Urol 2017; 198(3): 575–582.

31.

Washino

Okochi

Saito

, et al. Combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density predicts biopsy outcome in prostate biopsy naive patients. BJU Int 2017; 119(2): 225–233.

32.

Thompson

Ankerst

Chi

, et al. Assessing prostate cancer risk: results from the prostate cancer prevention trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98(8): 529–534.

33.

Alberts

Roobol

Verbeek

JFM

, et al. Prediction of high-grade prostate cancer following multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: improving the rotterdam european randomized study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculators. Eur Urol 2019; 75(2): 310–318.

34.

Carter

Albertsen

Barry

, et al. Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA guideline. J Urol 2013; 190(2): 419–426.

35.

Aquina

Probst

Becerra

, et al. High volume improves outcomes: the argument for centralization of rectal cancer surgery. Surgery 2016; 159(3): 736–748.