Nonsuspicious prebiopsy multiparametric MRI: is prostate biopsy still necessary?

Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Clinical, and Biopsy Findings in Suspected Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

Multiple strategies integrating magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and clinical data have been proposed to determine the need for a prostate biopsy in men with suspected clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) (Gleason score ≥3 + 4). However, inconsistencies across different strategies create challenges for drawing a definitive conclusion.

Objective

To determine the optimal prostate biopsy decision-making strategy for avoiding unnecessary biopsies and minimizing the risk of missing csPCa by combining MRI Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS) and clinical data.

Data Sources

PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception to July 1, 2022.

Study Selection

English-language studies that evaluated men with suspected but not confirmed csPCa who underwent MRI PI-RADS followed by prostate biopsy were included. Each study had proposed a biopsy plan by combining PI-RADS and clinical data.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Studies were independently assessed for eligibility for inclusion. Quality of studies was appraised using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Mixed-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression models with multimodel inference were performed. Reporting of this study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Independent risk factors of csPCa were determined by performing meta-regression between the rate of csPCa and PI-RADS and clinical parameters. Yields of different biopsy strategies were assessed by performing diagnostic meta-analysis.

Results

The analyses included 72 studies comprising 36 366 patients. Univariable meta-regression showed that PI-RADS 4 (β-coefficient [SE], 7.82 [3.85]; P = .045) and PI-RADS 5 (β-coefficient [SE], 23.18 [4.46]; P < .001) lesions, but not PI-RADS 3 lesions (β-coefficient [SE], -4.08 [3.06]; P = .19), were significantly associated with a higher risk of csPCa. When considered jointly in a multivariable model, prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) was the only clinical variable significantly associated with csPCa (β-coefficient [SE], 15.50 [5.14]; P < .001) besides PI-RADS 5 (β-coefficient [SE], 9.19 [3.33]; P < .001). Avoiding biopsy in patients with lesions with PI-RADS category of 3 or less and PSAD less than 0.10 (vs <0.15) ng/mL2 resulted in reducing 30% (vs 48%) of unnecessary biopsies (compared with performing biopsy in all suspected patients), with an estimated sensitivity of 97% (vs 95%) and number needed to harm of 17 (vs 15).

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that in patients with suspected csPCa, patient-tailored prostate biopsy decisions based on PI-RADS and PSAD could prevent unnecessary procedures while maintaining high sensitivity.

The Application of Biopsy Density in Transperineal Templated-Guided Biopsy Patients With PI-RADS<3

Background

In patients with multiparameter magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) low-possibility but highly clinical suspicion of prostate cancer, the biopsy core is unclear. Our study aims to introduce the biopsy density (BD; the ratio of biopsy cores to prostate volume) and investigates the BD-predictive value of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in PI-RADS<3 patients.

Methods

Patients underwent transperineal template–guided prostate biopsy from 2012 to 2022. The inclusion criteria were PI-RADS<3 with a positive digital rectal examination or persistent PSA abnormalities. BD was defined as the ratio of the biopsy core to the prostate volume. Clinical data were collected, and we grouped the patients according to pathology results. Kruskal–Wallis test and chi-square test were used in measurement and enumeration data, respectively. Logistics regression was used to choose the factor associated with positive biospy and csPCa. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the ability to predict csPCa.

Results

A total of 115 patients were included in our study. Biopsy was positive in 14 of 115 and the International Society of Urological Pathology grade groups 2–5 were in 7 of all the PCa patients. The BD was 0.38 (0.24-0.63) needles per milliliter. Binary logistics analysis suggested that PSAD and BD were correlated with positive biopsy. Meanwhile, BD and PSAD were associated with csPCa. The ROC curve illustrated that BD was a good parameter to predict csPCa (AUC=0.80, 95% CI: 0.69-0.91, p<0.05). The biopsy density combined with PSAD increased the prediction of csPCa (AUC=0.90, 95% CI: 0.85-0.97, p<0.05). The cut-off value of the BD was 0.42 according to the Youden index.

Conclusion

In PI-RADS<3 patients, BD and PSAD are related to csPCa. A biopsy density of more than 0.42 needles per millimeter can increase the csPCa detection rate, which should be considered as an alternative biopsy method when we perform prostate biopsy in patients with PI-RADS<3.

Prostate cancer in PI-RADS scores 1 and 2 version 2.1: a comparison to previous PI-RADS versions

PURPOSE

To evaluate the validity of PI-RADS categories 1 and 2 version 2.1 (V2.1) as predictors of the absence of carcinoma and to reevaluate lesions that were analysed as suspicious prior to PI-RADS or according to PI-RADS versions 1 and 2 and classified as PI-RADS 1 or 2 in V2.1.

METHODS

Retrospective evaluation of 1170 multiparametric MRIs performed at one academic teaching hospital (2012-2019). Study cohort comprised 188 men that achieved PI-RADS scores 1 or 2 (V2.1) and underwent systematic and targeted biopsy, split into one group with suspect findings in the original reports that were created prior to PI-RADS or with version 1 and 2, and another group with unremarkable reports. Differences in presence of prostate cancer and PSA density were assessed by Chi-square and Fisher's exact test, and the negative predictive value (NPV) for both groups was conducted.

RESULTS

The NPV for clinically significant carcinoma (csCa) was 89.1% for 55 men with suspect findings in the original report and 93.2% for 133 men with negative MRI. There was no difference between the groups regarding the detection of csCa (p = 0.103). PSA density was significantly higher in the group with suspect original reports (p = 0.015).

CONCLUSION

A PI-RADS score 1 or 2 appears less likely to miss existing prostate cancer, although a small amount of csCa can be overlooked. In case of clinical suspicion or elevated PSA density and PI-RADS score 1 or 2, an individual decision has to be taken if biopsy is necessary or if monitoring is sufficient.