A Multicentre Analysis of the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Following Transperineal Image-fusion Targeted and Nontargeted Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Men at Risk

Enhancing Data Completeness in Early Detection Pathway of Prostate Cancer: Integration of a Dashboard-Driven Feedback Tool to Improve Quality of Care

Background: Quality assurance in data collection is essential as data quality directly impacts the accuracy and reliability of outcomes. In the context of early detection of prostate cancer, improving data completeness is a key focus for enhancing patient care. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a data-driven feedback tool, visualized through a dashboard, in improving the completeness of data collection by healthcare professionals. Methods: A cohort of eight healthcare professionals were provided with a dashboard displaying weekly feedback on the completeness of 86 essential data items, including patient demographics, laboratory results, and imaging findings. A comparative analysis of data completeness was conducted for 577 patients enrolled in the prostate cancer early detection pathway, with 211 patients assessed before and 366 patients after the introduction of the dashboard. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney rank-sum test and Chi-square tests. Results: The implementation of the dashboard significantly improved data completeness across all healthcare professionals. The average completeness score increased from 0.70 (95% CI 0.67-0.76) before the dashboard's introduction to 0.88 (95% CI 0.86-0.92) after its implementation, with a p-value of <0.001. Conclusions: The introduction of a data-driven feedback dashboard significantly enhanced data completeness within the prostate cancer early detection pathway. This improvement has the potential to positively impact the quality of care and to support the generation of high-quality data for future research.

Can the Briganti 2019 nomogram be modified to predict lymph node metastasis risk in patients with prostate cancer detected with in-bore biopsy?

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to modify the Briganti 2019 nomogram and to test whether it is valid for patients who were diagnosed with prostate cancer through in-bore prostate biopsies.

METHODS

Data for 204 patients with positive multiparametric prostate MRI and prostate cancer identified either by mpMRI-cognitive/software fusion or in-bore biopsy and who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection between 2012 and 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. The Briganti 2019 nomogram was applied to the mpMRI-cognitive/software fusion biopsy group (142 patients) in the original form, and then, two modifications were tested for the targeted component. Original and modified scores were compared. These modifications were adapted for the in-bore biopsy group (62 patients). The final histopathologic stage was regarded as the gold standard.

RESULTS

Nodal metastases were identified in 18/142 (12.6%) of mpMRI-cognitive/software fusion biopsy patients and 8/62 (12.9%) of the in-bore biopsy patients. In the mpMRI-cognitive/software fusion biopsy group, tumor size/core size (%) of targeted biopsy cores and positive core percentage on systematic biopsy were significant parameters for lymph node metastasis based on univariate logistic regression analyses (p < 0.05). With the modifications of these parameters for the in-bore biopsy group, V1 modification of the Briganti 2019 nomogram provided 100% sensitivity and 31.5% specificity (AUC:0.627), while V2 modification provided 75% sensitivity and 46.3% specificity (AUC:0.645).

CONCLUSIONS

Briganti 2019 nomogram may be modified by utilizing tumor size/core size (%) for targeted biopsy cores instead of positive core percentage on systematic biopsy or by not taking both parameters into consideration to detect node metastasis risk of patients diagnosed with in-bore biopsies.

PSMA PET-targeted Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Initial Experience From a Multicenter Cohort

OBJECTIVE

To describe the initial experience with PSMA-PET/CT-guided biopsy in European referral centres.

METHODS

This multicenter observational cohort study was endorsed by the Young Academic Urologist (YAU) Prostate Cancer Group of the EAU and conducted across 6 tertiary-level European centres. PSMA-guided biopsies were carried out in a cognitive/fusion manner for all the recruited patients with or without MRI-guided biopsies and/or standard biopsy (SB). PCa and clinical significant PCa (csPCA) detection rate (DR) at prostate biopsy was assessed. Uni- and multivariable models were employed to identify features related to csPCA.

RESULTS

Overall, 72 patients were recruited. The topographic location of the dominant lesion depicted by PSMA PET/CT was significantly associated with the location of csPCa, especially in the biopsy naïve cohort. The DR for PCa and csPCa of PSMA-PET/CT-guided biopsies was significantly higher than SB (0.40 ± 0.43 vs 0.23 ± 0.29, and 0.36 ± 0.44 vs 0.21 ± 0.30, respectively, both P <.05) but did not surpass MRI-guided biopsies (0.40 ± 0.43 vs 0.47 ± 0.44, and 0.36 ± 0.44 vs 0.47 ± 0.34, respectively, both P >.05). PSMA-PET/CT-guided biopsy performed better in the biopsy naïve than in the repeated biopsy setting. A SUVmax cut-off value equal to 4.8 provided the best results for detecting csPCa.

CONCLUSION

Our real-world data illustrate the potentialities of PSMA-PET/CT-guided biopsy in diagnosing PCa. Specifically, in biopsy naïve patients with suspicion of high-risk disease, the use of PSMA-PET/CT-targeted biopsy can be considered. Additionally, in the context of repeated biopsies, a PSMA-PET/CT target biopsy might be advisable over the SB.

MRI-Ultrasound Fused Approach for Prostate Biopsy-How It Is Performed

The use of MRI-ultrasound image fusion targeted biopsy of the prostate in the face of an elevated serum PSA is now recommended by multiple societies, and results in improved detection of clinically significant cancer and, potentially, decreased detection of indolent disease. This combines the excellent sensitivity of MRI for clinically significant prostate cancer and the real-time biopsy guidance and confirmation of ultrasound. Both transperineal and transrectal approaches can be implemented using cognitive fusion, mechanical fusion with an articulated arm and electromagnetic registration, or pure software registration. The performance has been shown comparable to in-bore MRI biopsy performance. However, a number of factors influence the performance of this technique, including the quality and interpretation of the MRI, the approach used for biopsy, and experience of the practitioner, with most studies showing comparable performance of MRI-ultrasound fusion to in-bore targeted biopsy. Future improvements including artificial intelligence promise to refine the performance of all approaches.

Switching from the transrectal to the transperineal route: A single center experience

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of switching from transrectal to transperineal prostate biopsy (TPPBx) by urologists with no previous experience with TPPBx. Material A monocentric clinical study with exhaustive and consecutive inclusions was conducted between January and November 2021, including 105 consecutive patients who underwent TPPBx performed by two senior urologists with no previous experience of TPPBx (GR, FB). Biopsies were performed under local anesthesia (LA) without antibioprophylaxis. The main objective was to assess the safety of this procedure. Adverse events were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo score. The secondary objectives were to assess the level of pain experienced during the different steps of the procedure using a numerating rating scale (NRS), the rate of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detected, and the level of anxiety using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HAD).

RESULTS

No major complications (Clavien-Dindo score≥3) were reported. One patient presented with acute urinary retention (1%) and a urinary tract infection (1%). Other adverse events were hematuria (43%), hemospermia (23%), rectal bleeding (1%), perineal hematoma (3%), persistent perineal pain (5%), and de novo erectile dysfunction (2%). The median level of pain on NRS for the procedure was 2.00 (IQ: 1.00-4.00); it was 3.00 (IQ: 2.00-5.00) during LA and 3.00 (IQ: 2.00-5.00) during punctions. In anxious patients (HAD score>10), the level of pain during the procedure was 2.5 (IQ: 2.00-3.00). Overall, csPCa was detected in 63%.

CONCLUSION

TPPBx under LA without antibioprophylaxis provides few complications, an acceptable pain threshold, and a satisfactorily rate of csPCa detection, even if performed by urologists with no previous experience of TPPBx.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3

External Validation of the IMPROD-MRI Volumetric Model to Predict the Utility of Systematic Biopsies at the Time of Targeted Biopsy

Background: The aim of this study was to validate externally a nomogram that relies on MRI volumetric parameters and clinical data to determine the need for a standard biopsy in addition to a target biopsy for men with suspicious prostate MRI findings. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of 469 biopsy-naïve men who underwent prostate biopsies. These biopsies were guided by pre-biopsy multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) and were performed at two different institutions. We included men with a PIRADSsv 2.1 score from 3 to 5. Each patient underwent both an MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy of identified MRI-suspicious lesions and a systematic biopsy according to our protocol. The lesion volume percentage was determined as the proportion of cancer volume on MRI relative to the entire prostate volume. The study's outcomes were iPCa (Gleason Grade Group 1) and csPCa (Gleason Grade Group > 1). We evaluated the model's performance using AUC decision curve analyses and a systematic analysis of model-derived probability cut-offs in terms of the potential to avoid diagnosing iPCa and to accurately diagnose csPCa. Results: The nomogram includes age, PSA value, prostate volume, PIRADSsv 2.1 score, percentage of MRI-suspicious lesion volume, and lesion location. AUC was determined to be 0.73. By using various nomogram cut-off thresholds (ranging from 5% to 30%), it was observed that 19% to 58% of men could potentially avoid undergoing standard biopsies. In this scenario, the model might miss 0% to 10% of diagnosis of csPCa and could prevent identifying 6% to 31% of iPCa cases. These results are in line with findings from the multi-institutional external validation study based on the IMPROD trial (n = 122) and the MULTI-IMPROD trial (n = 262). According to DCA, the use of this nomogram led to an increased overall net clinical benefit when the threshold probability exceeded 10%. Conclusions: This study supports the potential value of a model relying on MRI volumetric measurements for selecting individuals with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer who would benefit from undergoing a standard biopsy in addition to a targeted biopsy.

A Systematic Review of the Current Status of Magnetic Resonance-Ultrasound Images Fusion Software Platforms for Transperineal Prostate Biopsies

Given this new context, our objective is to recognize the suitability of the currently available software for image fusion and the reported series using the transperineal route, as well as to generate new evidence on the complementarity of the directed and systematic biopsies, which has been established through the transrectal approach.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

This systematic review, registered in Prospero (CRD42022375619), began with a bibliographic search that was carried out in PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) criteria and the studied eligibility based on the Participants, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes (PICO) strategy were followed. Warp analysis of selected studies was performed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. In addition, a Google search of all currently available fusion platforms was performed. Our Google search found 11 different commercially available robots to perform transperineal image fusion biopsies, of which 10 devices have published articles supporting their diagnostic effectiveness in transperineal prostate biopsies.

RESULTS

A total of 30 articles were selected and the characteristics and results of the biopsies of 11,313 patients were analyzed. The pooled mean age was 66.5 years (63-69). The mean pooled PSA level was 7.8 ng/mL (5.7-10.8). The mean pooled prostate volume was 45.4 cc. (34-56). The mean pooled PSA density was 0.17 (0.12-0.27). The overall cancer detection rate for all prostate cancers was 61.4%, while for csPCa it was 47.8%. PCa detection rate was more effective than that demonstrated in the systematic transrectal biopsy. However, the detection of csPCa in the systematic biopsy was only 9.5% in the reported series. To standardize our review, we grouped prostate cancer screening results according to the population studied and the software used. When the same populations were compared between elastic and rigid software, we found that rigid biopsies had a higher csPCa detection rate than biopsies with elastic fusion systems.

CONCLUSION

Platforms performing prostate biopsy using transperineal image fusion have better detection rates of csPCa than systematic transrectal biopsies. Rigid fusion systems have a better csPCa detection rate than elastic ones. We found no diagnostic differences between the different types of robotic systems currently available. The complementarity of systematic biopsy has also been demonstrated in transperineal imaging fusion biopsies.

Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Targeted by Magnetic Resonance Imaging Cognitive Fusion

Prostate cancer is among the most frequently diagnosed cancers and a leading cause of cancer-related death in men. Currently, the most reliable and widely used imaging test for prostate cancer diagnosis is multiparametric pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). Modern biopsy techniques are based on the computerised merging of ultrasound and MRI images to provide better vision during the biopsy procedure (Fusion Biopsy). However, the method is expensive due to high equipment cost. Cognitive fusion of ultrasound and MRI images has recently emerged as a cheaper and easier alternative to computerised fusion. The aim of this prospective study is to perform an in-patient comparison of the systematic prostate biopsy procedure (SB) vs. cognitive fusion (CF) guided prostate biopsy method in terms of safety, ease of use, cancer detection rate and clinically significant cancer detection. We enrolled 103 patients with suspected prostate cancer that were biopsy naive, with PSA > 4 ng/dL and PIRADS score of 3, 4 or 5. All patients received a transperineal standard 12-18 cores systematic biopsy (SB) and a four-cores targeted cognitive fusion (CF) biopsy. Following the prostate biopsy, 68% of the patients were diagnosed with prostate cancer (70/103 patients). SB diagnosis rate was 62% while CF biopsy was slightly better with a 66% rate. There was a significant 20% increase in clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate for the CF compared to SB (p < 0.05) and a significant prostate cancer risk upgrade from the low to the intermediate risk category (13%, p = 0.041). Transperineal cognitive fusion targeted prostate biopsy is a straightforward biopsy method that is easy to perform and is a safe alternative to standard systematic biopsy with improved significant cancer detection accuracy. A combined targeted and systematic approach should be used for the best diagnostic results.

A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing target prostate biopsy alone approach vs. target plus standard in naïve patients with positive mpMRI

BACKGROUND

In the era of mpMRI guided target fusion biopsy (FB), the role of concomitant standard biopsy (SB) in naïve patients still remains under scrutiny. The aim of this study was to compare the detection rate (DR) of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in biopsy naïve patients with positive mpMRI who underwent FB alone (Arm A) vs FB+SB (Arm B). Secondary objectives were to compare the incidence of complications, the overall PCa DR and the biopsy results with final pathological findings after robotic prostatectomy (RARP).

METHODS

This is a single center prospective non-inferiority parallel two arms (1:1) randomized control trial (ISRCTN registry number ISRCTN60263108) which took place at San Luigi Gonzaga University Hospital, Orbassano (Turin, Italy) from 4/2019 to 10/2021. Eligible participants were all adults aged<75 years old, biopsy naïve, with serum PSA<15 ng/mL and positive mpMRI (Pi-Rads V.2>3). FB was performed under ultrasound guidance using the BioJet fusion system; four to six target samples were obtained for each index lesion. SB was performed in accordance with the protocol by Rodríguez-Covarrubias. RARP with total anatomical reconstruction was carried out when indicated. DR of PCa and csPCA (Gleason Score >7) were evaluated. Post-biopsy complications according to Clavien-Dindo were recorded. Concordance between biopsy and RARP pathological findings was evaluated. Fisher's Exact test and Mann-Whitney test were applied; furthermore, Logistic Principal Component Analysis (LogPCA) and Pearson's correlation method, in terms of correlation funnel plots, were performed to explore data in a multivariate way.

RESULTS

201 and 193 patients were enrolled in Arm A and B, respectively. csPCa DR was 60.2% vs. 60.6% in Arm A and B respectively (Δ 0.4%; P=0.93); whilst overall PCa DR was 63.7% vs. 71.0% (Δ 7.3%; P=0.12). However, in a target only setting, the addition of SB homolaterally to the index lesion reaching a non-inferior performance compared to the combined sampling (Δ PCa DR 3%). Although the differences of 7.3% in PCa DR, during RARP were registered similar nerve sparing rate (P=0.89), positive surgical margins (P=0.67) and rate of significant upgrading (P=0.12). LogPCA model showed no distinction between the two cohorts; and Pearson's correlation values turned to be between -0.5 and +0.5. In Arm B, the lesion diameter <10 mm is the only predictive variable of positive SB only for PCa (P=0.04), with an additional value +3% for PCa DR.

CONCLUSIONS

In biopsy naïve patients, FB alone is not inferior to FB+SB in detecting csPCa (Δ csPCa DR 0.4%). Δ 7.3% in overall PCa DR was registered between the two Arms, however the addition of further standard samples homolaterally to mp-MRI index lesion improved the overall PCa DR of FB only sampling (Δ PCa DR 3%). The omission of SB did not influence the post-surgical outcomes in terms of NS approach, PSMr and upgrading/downgrading.

Landmarks in the evolution of prostate biopsy

Approaches and techniques used for diagnostic prostate biopsy have undergone considerable evolution over the past few decades: from the original finger-guided techniques to the latest MRI-directed strategies, from aspiration cytology to tissue core sampling, and from transrectal to transperineal approaches. In particular, increased adoption of transperineal biopsy approaches have led to reduced infectious complications and improved antibiotic stewardship. Furthermore, as image fusion has become integral, these novel techniques could be incorporated into prostate biopsy methods in the future, enabling 3D-ultrasonography fusion reconstruction, molecular targeting based on PET imaging and autonomous robotic-assisted biopsy.

Pooled outcomes of performing freehand transperineal prostate biopsy with the PrecisionPoint Transperineal Access System

Objectives

To report the results of a pooled analysis evaluating the cancer detection rates, complications, and tolerability of prostate biopsies performed using the PrecisionPoint Transperineal Access System.

Patients and Methods

The medical literature was reviewed to identify studies published prior to 1 October 2021 evaluating the PrecisionPoint device for performance of transperineal prostate biopsy. Pooled analyses were performed to assess overall and clinically significant cancer detection rates. Additionally, data on complications as well as patient tolerability of the procedure when performed under local anaesthesia were extracted.

Results

Transperineal biopsy with the PrecisionPoint Transperineal Access System achieved overall and clinically significant cancer detection rates of 67.9% and 42.6%, respectively. Among patients with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3, 4, and 5 lesions on prostate magnetic resonance imaging, clinically significant disease was found in 31.7%, 55.7%, and 71.8% of patients, respectively. Complications were rare, with sepsis reported in 4 (0.1%) of 3411 procedures despite frequent omission of antibiotic prophylaxis. Patients reported acceptable tolerability of the procedure when performed under local anaesthesia.

Conclusions

Within the available medical literature, there is uniform evidence supporting the use of the PrecisionPoint Transperineal Access System for performing prostate biopsy procedures. The reported cancer detection and infectious complication rates with this device are in line with other methods for performing transperineal prostate biopsy. A unique aspect of the PrecisionPoint device is its ability to facilitate performing transperineal prostate biopsy under local anaesthesia. This factor will likely lead to increased adoption of the beneficial transperineal approach to prostate biopsy.

Development of a novel nomogram to identify the candidate to extended pelvic lymph node dissection in patients who underwent mpMRI and target biopsy only

BACKGROUND

Nowadays a tool able to predict the risk of lymph-node invasion (LNI) in patients underwent target biopsy (TB) only before radical prostatectomy (RP) is still lacking. Our aim is to develop a model based on mp-MRI and target biopsy (TB) alone able to predict the risk of LNI.

METHODS

We retrospectively extracted data of patients with preoperative positive mp-MRI and TB only who underwent RARP with ePLND from April 2014 to March 2020. A logistic regression model was performed to evaluate the impact of pre- and intra-operative factors on the risk of LNI. Model discrimination was assessed using an area under (AUC) the ROC curve. A nomogram, and its calibration plot, to predict the risk of LNI were generated based on the logistic model. A validation of the model was done using a similar cohort.

RESULTS

461 patients were included, of which 52 (11.27) had LNI. After logistic regression analysis and multivariable model DRE, PI-RADS, seminal vesicle invasion, PSA and worst GS at I and II target lesions were significant predictors of LNI. The AUC was 0.74 [0.67-0.81] 95% CI. The calibration plot shows that our model is very close to the ideal one which is in the 95% CI. After the creation of a visual nomogram, the cut-off to discriminate between the risk or not of LNI was set with Youden index at 60 points that correspond to a risk of LNI of 7%. The model applied on a similar cohort shown a LH+ of 2.58 [2.17-2.98] 95% CI.

CONCLUSIONS

Our nomogram for patients undergoing MRI-TB only takes into account clinical stage, SVI at MRI, biopsy Gleason pattern and PSA and it is able to identify patients with risk of LNI when a score higher than 7% is achieved.

Construction and Validation of a Clinical Predictive Nomogram for Improving the Cancer Detection of Prostate Naive Biopsy Based on Chinese Multicenter Clinical Data

Objectives

Prostate biopsy is a common approach for the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) in patients with suspicious PCa. In order to increase the detection rate of prostate naive biopsy, we constructed two effective nomograms for predicting the diagnosis of PCa and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) prior to biopsy.

Materials and Methods

The data of 1,428 patients who underwent prostate biopsy in three Chinese medical centers from January 2018 to June 2021 were used to conduct this retrospective study. The KD cohort, which consisted of 701 patients, was used for model construction and internal validation; the DF cohort, which consisted of 385 patients, and the ZD cohort, which consisted of 342 patients, were used for external validation. Independent predictors were selected by univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression analysis and adopted for establishing the predictive nomogram. The apparent performance of the model was evaluated via internal validation and geographically external validation. For assessing the clinical utility of our model, decision curve analysis was also performed.

Results

The results of univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis showed prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) (P<0.001, OR:2.102, 95%CI:1.687-2.620) and prostate imaging-reporting and data system (PI-RADS) grade (P<0.001, OR:4.528, 95%CI:2.752-7.453) were independent predictors of PCa before biopsy. Therefore, a nomogram composed of PSAD and PI-RADS grade was constructed. Internal validation in the developed cohort showed that the nomogram had good discrimination (AUC=0.804), and the calibration curve indicated that the predicted incidence was consistent with the observed incidence of PCa; the brier score was 0.172. External validation was performed in the DF and ZD cohorts. The AUC values were 0.884 and 0.882, in the DF and ZD cohorts, respectively. Calibration curves elucidated greatly predicted the accuracy of PCa in the two validation cohorts; the brier scores were 0.129 in the DF cohort and 0.131 in the ZD cohort. Decision curve analysis showed that our model can add net benefits for patients. A separated predicted model for csPCa was also established and validated. The apparent performance of our nomogram for PCa was also assessed in three different PSA groups, and the results were as good as we expected.

Conclusions

In this study, we put forward two simple and convenient clinical predictive models comprised of PSAD and PI-RADS grade with excellent reproducibility and generalizability. They provide a novel calculator for the prediction of the diagnosis of an individual patient with suspicious PCa.

Prostate cancer detection rate in men undergoing transperineal template-guided saturation and targeted prostate biopsy

OBJECTIVES

To compare prostate cancer (PCa) detection rate of transperineal template-guided saturation prostate biopsy (SBx) and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided targeted biopsy (TBx). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 392 men who underwent SBx and TBx in case of suspicious lesions from November 2016 to October 2019. Triggers for a biopsy were an elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and/or positive digital rectal examination and only treatment naïve patients without a previous diagnosis of PCa were included. Study inclusion occurred before biopsy and a prebiopsy mpMRI was available in all men. SBx were taken from 20 different locations according to the modified Barzell zones. The primary endpoint was the detection rate of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) and insignificant PCa (ciPCa) by SBx and/or TBx by comparing the two methods alone and in combination. Additional TBx were taken for any prostate imaging-reporting and data system (PI-RADS) lesion ≥3 seen on the mpMRI. csPCa was defined as any Gleason score ≥7 and ciPCa as Gleason score 6.

RESULTS

A total of 392 men with a median age of 64 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 58-69), a median PSA of 7.0 ng/ml (IQR: 4.8-10.1) were enrolled. Overall, PCa was found in 200 (51%) of all biopsied men, with 158 (79%) being csPCa and 42 (21%) ciPCa. A total of 268 (68%) men with a suspicious mpMRI and underwent a combined TBx and SBx, of whom csPCa was found in 139 (52%). In this subgroup, 116/139 (83%) csPCa would have been detected by TBx alone, and an additional 23 (17%) were found by SBx. Men with a negative mpMRI (PI-RADS < 3, n = 124, 32%) were found to have csPCa in 19 (15%) cases. In patients with a negative mpMRI in combination with a PSA density <0.1 ng/ml² , only 8% (3/36) had csPCa. If only TBx would have been performed and all men with a negative mpMRI would not have been biopsed, 42/158 (27%) of csPCa would have been missed, and 38/42 (90%) ciPCa would have not been detected. On multivariable analysis, significant predictors of csPCa were increasing PSA (odds ratio, OR: 1.07 [95% confidence interval, CI: 1.03-1.11]), increasing age (OR: 1.07 [95% CI: 1.03-1.11]), PI-RADS score ≥ 3 (OR: 6.49 [95% CI: 3.55-11.89]), and smaller prostate volume (OR: 0.96 [95% CI: 0.95 -0.97] (p < 0.05 for all parameters).

CONCLUSION

In comparison to SBx, TBx alone detects csPCa in only ¾ of all men with a positive mpMRI lesion. Thus, systematic biopsies in addition to TBx have to be considered at least in some who undergo a prostate biopsy. In men with a negative mpMRI, SBx still detects 15% csPCa, but similarly overdetecting ciPCa. According to our results, low PSA density and negative mpMRI findings could be used to decide which men can safely avoid biopsy.

The Role of Prostate Combination Biopsy Consisting of Targeted and Additional Systematic Biopsy

BACKGROUND

To identify the role of combination biopsy, which consists of both targeted and additional systematic cores, in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients with PSA levels 2.5-15 ng/mL who have a suspicious prostate lesion (with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) ≥ 3) on multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) between January 2016 and December 2018. We analyzed biopsy results by PI-RADS score and biopsy methods (systematic, targeted, and combination biopsy).

RESULTS

Of the 711 total patients, an average of 4.0 ± 1.8 targeted and 8.6 ± 3.1 additional systematic biopsies were performed. The additional systematic biopsies were sampled outside the targeted biopsy area. The combination biopsies detected more csPCa (201 patients, 28.3%) than did the targeted (175 patients, 24.6%) or systematic (124 patients, 17.4%) biopsies alone (p < 0.001). In the initial biopsy samples, there was a 7% increase in the detection of csPCa than in targeted biopsy (62% to 69%). It increased by 11% in repeat biopsy (46% to 57%). There was no statistical significance in both groups (p = 0.3174).

CONCLUSIONS

Combination biopsy has the benefit of detecting csPCa in both initial and repeat biopsy when there is a suspicious lesion on mpMRI.

Impact of delay from transperineal biopsy to radical prostatectomy upon objective measures of cancer control

Objective

Treatment delays in prostate cancer have been characterised, although not explicitly in men undergoing transperineal prostate biopsies. We aimed to determine if delays to radical prostatectomy correlate with adverse outcomes using a contemporary population-based cohort of men diagnosed by transperineal biopsies.

Methods

This study analysed men with prostate cancer of the International Society for Urological Pathology grade group ≥2, diagnosed by transperineal prostate biopsies who underwent prostatectomy, using the prospectively data from 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2018 Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry-Victoria. Data were analysed according to stratified demographic and disease characteristics. Time intervals from biopsy (28, 60, 90, 120, and 270 days) were compared using odds ratios and regression analyses for proportion of upgrading, early biochemical recurrence, pT3 disease at prostatectomy, and positive surgical margins.

Results

In total, 2008 men were analysed. There were 306 (16.7%) men with upgrading, 151 (8.4%) with biochemical recurrence, 1068 (54.1%) with pT3 disease, and 464 (23.1%) with positive surgical margins (percentages excluded patients with missing data). All adverse outcomes studied were significantly associated with higher prostate-specific antigen and grade at diagnosis. Delays of 120–270 days did not adversely alter the incidence of Gleason upgrading, pT3, or recurrence. Delays (most frequent 60–89 days, 28%) were associated with positive surgical margins but not monotonically. Regression modelling demonstrated no increased likelihood of most adverse outcomes for up to 270 days.

Conclusion

Men with prostate cancer of grade group ≥2 diagnosed through transperineal biopsy may wait up to 270 days for a prostatectomy without a greater likelihood of upgrading, pT3 disease, positive surgical margins, or biochemical recurrence.

Magnetic resonance imaging /ultrasonography fusion transperineal prostate biopsy for prostate cancer: Initial experience at a Middle Eastern tertiary medical centre

Objective: To report on the outcomes of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasonography (US)-fusion transperineal prostate (TP) biopsy at a tertiary medical centre in the Middle East including detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), complications, and tolerability of the procedure. Patients and methods: Between May 2019 and June 2020, 98 MRI/US-fusion TP biopsies were performed in the US suite using light sedation. All patients had pre-biopsy 3-T multiparametric MRI. Data on patient characteristics, PCa detection rate and complication rates were collected retrospectively. A Gleason score ≥3 + 4 was defined as csPCa.

RESULTS

There were 98 patients, with a mean (SD) age of 65 (9.1) years, and a median (SD) prostate-specific antigen level prior to biopsy of 7.53 (12.97) ng/mL and prostate volume of 51 (31.1) mL. PCa was detected in 54 (55%) patients, with csPCa detected in 43 (44%). A total of 124 Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3-5 lesions were targeted. Grade Group ≥2 PCa was found in 35.5% of the targeted lesions. Random biopsies detected one csPCa Gleason score 3 + 4 in one patient with a negative target. None of the patients had post-biopsy haematuria or retention. Only one patient developed acute prostatitis requiring in-patient intravenous antibiotics.

CONCLUSIONS

MRI/US-fusion TP biopsy has an adequate detection rate of csPCa with minimal complications and low infection rates after biopsy. This is one of the first TP biopsy series in the Middle East paving the way for wider adoption in the region.

ABBREVIATIONS

AS: active surveillance; AUR: acute urinary retention; GG: Grade Group; IQR: interquartile range; mpMRI: multiparametric MRI; (cs)PCa: (clinically significant) prostate cancer; PI-RADS: Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System; TP: transperineal; US: ultrasonography; TRUS: transrectal Ultrasound guided.

Naive patients with suspicious prostate cancer and positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI): is it time for fusion target biopsy alone?

Objectives:

To determine if standard biopsy still has a role in the detection of prostate cancer or clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive patients with positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging.

Materials and methods:

We extracted, from our prospective maintained fusion biopsy database, patients from March 2014 to December 2018. The detection rate of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer and complication rate were analysed in a cohort of patients who underwent fusion biopsy alone (group A) or fusion biopsy plus standard biopsy (group B). The International Society of Urological Pathology grade group determined on prostate biopsy with the grade group determined on final pathology among patients who underwent radical prostatectomy were compared.

Results:

Prostate cancer was found in 249/389 (64.01%) and 215/337 (63.8%) patients in groups A and B, respectively ( P=0.98), while the clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate was 57.8% and 55.1% ( P=0.52). No significant differences in complications were found. No differences in the upgrading rate between biopsy and final pathology finding after radical prostatectomy were recorded.

Conclusions:

In biopsy-naive patients, with suspected prostate cancer and positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging the addition of standard biopsy to fusion biopsy did not increase significantly the detection rate of prostate cancer or clinically significant prostate cancer. Moreover, the rate of upgrading of the cancer grade group between biopsy and final pathology was not affected by the addition of standard biopsy.

Level of evidence:

Not applicable for this multicentre audit.

Systematic sampling during MRI-US fusion prostate biopsy can overcome errors of targeting-prospective single center experience after 300 cases in first biopsy setting

Background

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and targeted biopsy have become an integral part of the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa), as recommended by the European Association of Urology Guidelines. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the performance of MRI and MRI-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy as first biopsy setting in a tertiary center.

Methods

A cohort of 300 patients was included in the current analysis. All patients presented with clinical or biochemical suspicion of PCa and harbored at least one suspect lesion on mpMRI. MRI-TRUS fusion prostate biopsy, followed by 12 core systematic prostate biopsy were performed by the same operator using a rigid registration system.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 64 years (IQR: 58–68.5 years) and the mean PSA was 6.35 ng/mL (IQR: 4.84–9.46 ng/mL). Overall cancer and csPCa diagnosis rates were 47% and 40.66%. Overall PCa/csPCa detection rates were 20.4%/11.1%, 52%/45% and 68.5%/66.7% for PI-RADS lesions 3, 4 and 5 (P<0.001/P<0.0001). Larger lesion diameter and lesion volume were associated with PCa diagnosis (P=0.006 and P=0.001, respectively). MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy missed PCa diagnosis in 37 cases (of whom 48.6% ISUP 1) in comparison with 9 patients missed by systematic biopsy (of whom 11.1% ISUP 1). In terms of csPCa, systematic biopsy missed 77.7% of the tumors located in the anterior and transitional areas. The rate of csPCa was highest when targeted biopsy was associated with systematic biopsy: 86.52% vs. 68.79% for targeted biopsy vs. 80.14% for systematic biopsy, P=0.0004. In 60.6% of cases, systematic biopsy was positive for PCa at the same site as the targeted lesion. Of these patients, eight harbored csPCa and were diagnosed exclusively on systematic biopsy.

Conclusions

MRI-TRUS fusion prostate biopsy improves the diagnosis of csPCa. The main advantage of an MRI-guided approach is the diagnosis of anterior and transitional area tumors. The best results in terms of csPCa diagnosis are obtained by the combination of MRI-TRUS fusion with systematic biopsy. The systematic biopsy performed during MRI-targeted biopsy could have an important role in overcoming errors of MRI-TRUS fusion systems.

Rethinking prostate cancer screening: could MRI be an alternative screening test?

In the past decade rigorous debate has taken place about population-based screening for prostate cancer. Although screening by serum PSA levels can reduce prostate cancer-specific mortality, it is unclear whether the benefits outweigh the risks of false-positive results and overdiagnosis of insignificant prostate cancer, and it is not recommended for population-based screening. MRI screening for prostate cancer has the potential to be analogous to mammography for breast cancer or low-dose CT for lung cancer. A number of potential barriers and technical challenges need to be overcome in order to implement such a programme. We discuss different approaches to MRI screening that could address these challenges, including abbreviated MRI protocols, targeted MRI screening, longer rescreening intervals and a multi-modal screening pathway. These approaches need further investigation, and we propose a phased stepwise research framework to ensure proper evaluation of the use of a fast MRI examination as a screening test for prostate cancer.

Value of systematic sampling in an mp-MRI targeted prostate biopsy strategy

The clinical utility of systematic prostate biopsy in addition to multi-parametric magnetic resonance imagining (mp-MRI) targeted biopsy pathways remains unclear. Despite radiological advancements in mp-MRI and utilisation of international standardised reporting systems (i.e., PI-RADS, LIKERT), undetected clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) on imaging persists. This has prevented the widespread adoption of an exclusively targeted biopsy approach. The current evidence on csPCa cancer detection rates in mp-MRI targeted alone and combined with a non-targeted systematic sampling is presented. Arguments for and against routine limited systematic sampling as an adjunct to an mp-MRI targeted biopsy are discussed. Our review will report the clinical utility of a combined sampling strategy on csPCa detection rate. The available evidence suggests that we are yet to reach a stage where non-targeted systematic prostate biopsy can be routinely omitted in mp-MRI targeted prostate biopsy pathways. Research should focus on improving the accuracy of mp-MRI, prostate biopsy techniques, and in identifying those men that will most benefit from a combined prostate biopsy. Such strategies may help future urologists reduce the burden of non-targeted cores in modern mp-MRI prostate biopsy pathways.

Targeted and systematic cognitive freehand-guided transperineal biopsy: is there still a role for systematic biopsy?

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether targeted cognitive freehand-assisted transperineal biopsies using a Precisionpoint^TM device still require additional systematic biopsies to avoid missing clinically significant prostate cancer, and to investigate the benefit of a quadrant-only biopsy approach to analyse whether a quadrant or extended target of the quadrant containing the target only would have been equivalent to systematic biopsy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients underwent combined systematic mapping and targeted transperineal prostate biopsies at a single institution. Biopsies were performed using the Precisionpoint device (Perineologic, Cumberland, MD, USA) under either local anaesthetic (58%, 163/282), i.v. sedation (12%, 34/282) or general anaesthetic (30%, 85/282). A mean (range) of 24 (5-42) systematic and 4.2 (1-11) target cores were obtained. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans were reported using the Likert scale. Clinically significant cancer was defined as Gleason 7 or above. Histopathological results were correlated with the presence of an MRI abnormality within a spatial quadrant and the other adjoining or non-adjoining (opposite) quadrants. Histological concordance with radical prostatectomy specimens was analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 282 patients were included in this study. Their mean (range) age was 66.8 (36-80) years, median (range) prostate-specific antigen level 7.4 (0.91-116) ng/mL and mean prostate volume 45.8 (13-150) mL. In this cohort, 82% of cases (230/282) were primary biopsies and 18% (52/282) were patients on surveillance. In all, 69% of biopsies (195/282) were identified to have clinically significant disease (Gleason ≥3 + 4). Any cancer (Gleason ≥3 + 3) was found in 84% (237/282) of patients. Of patients with clinically significant disease, the target biopsies alone picked up 88% (171/195), with systematic biopsy picking up the additional 12% (24/195) that the target biopsies missed. This altered with Likert score; 73% of Likert score 3 disease was detected by target biopsy, 92% of Likert score 4 and 100% of Likert score 5. Target biopsies with additional same-quadrant-only systematic cores picked up 75% (18/24) of significant cancer that was missed on target only, found in the same quadrant as the target.

CONCLUSION

Systematic biopsy is still an important tool when evaluating all patients referred for prostate biopsy, but the need is decreased with increasing suspicion on MRI. Patients with very high suspicion of prostate cancer (Likert score 5) may not require systematic cores, unless representative surrounding biopsies are required for other specific treatments (e.g. focal therapy, or operative planning). More prospective studies are needed to evaluate this in full.

Focal therapy for localized prostate cancer in the era of routine multi-parametric MRI

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer focal therapy aims to minimize the side-effects of whole gland treatments, such as radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy without compromising oncological efficacy. However, concerns exist regarding the multifocal nature of prostate cancer and the lack of long-term oncological data for this form of treatment. In recent years, the routine adoption of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate has improved our ability to select candidates for focal therapy and to accurately deliver this form of prostate cancer treatment.

METHODS

We performed a review of the literature to provide a summary of the oncological and functional outcomes of men receiving primary prostate focal therapy. Furthermore, we discuss the impact of the routine implementation of mpMRI as part of the initial prostate cancer diagnostic pathway on the selection of candidates and delivery of focal therapy. Finally, we summarize knowledge gaps in the field and highlight active clinical trials in this arena.

RESULTS

Primary focal therapy involves the application of one of a number of energies that ablate tissue, such as cryotherapy and high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). Success is principally dependent on highly accurate patient selection and disease localization underpinned in large part by the routine integration of pre-biopsy mpMRI. Prospective medium-term follow-up data for primary HIFU and cryotherapy for men with intermediate-risk disease have shown acceptable cancer control with low risk of side effects and complications. Additional research is needed to clearly define an appropriate follow-up approach and to guide the management of in- and out-of-field recurrences. Multiple comparative trials with randomization against standard care are currently underway in men with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer.

CONCLUSION

The widespread adoption of prostate mpMRI has led to improved disease localization, enabling the performance of focal therapy as a viable treatment strategy for men with low volume intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

Targeted and Systematic Biopsy for Diagnosis and Management of Prostate Cancer

The value of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of clinically-significant prostate cancer is increasingly well-established, and has been adopted in current diagnostic pathways and clinical guidelines. Concurrently, the role of conventional ultrasound-guided systematic prostate biopsy is increasingly questioned. In this brief review, we evaluate the continued value of systematic biopsy including a review of prospective studies on targeted and systemic biopsies in the same patients. We also address current limitations of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate.