Is There Still a Need for Repeated Systematic Biopsies in Patients with Previous Negative Biopsies in the Era of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsies of the Prostate?

MRI software and cognitive fusion biopsies in people with suspected prostate cancer: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

Magnetic resonance imaging localises cancer in the prostate, allowing for a targeted biopsy with or without transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy. Targeted biopsy methods include cognitive fusion, where prostate lesions suspicious on magnetic resonance imaging are targeted visually during live ultrasound, and software fusion, where computer software overlays the magnetic resonance imaging image onto the ultrasound in real time. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of software fusion technologies compared with cognitive fusion biopsy are uncertain.

Objectives

To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of software fusion biopsy technologies in people with suspected localised and locally advanced prostate cancer. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy, clinical efficacy and practical implementation of nine software fusion devices compared to cognitive fusion biopsies, and with each other, in people with suspected prostate cancer. Comprehensive searches including MEDLINE, and Embase were conducted up to August 2022 to identify studies which compared software fusion and cognitive fusion biopsies in people with suspected prostate cancer. Risk of bias was assessed with quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-comparative tool. A network meta-analysis comparing software and cognitive fusion with or without concomitant systematic biopsy, and systematic biopsy alone was conducted. Additional outcomes, including safety and usability, were synthesised narratively. A de novo decision model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of targeted software fusion biopsy relative to cognitive fusion biopsy with or without concomitant systematic biopsy for prostate cancer identification in biopsy-naive people. Scenario analyses were undertaken to explore the robustness of the results to variation in the model data sources and alternative assumptions.

Results

Twenty-three studies (3773 patients with software fusion, 2154 cognitive fusion) were included, of which 13 informed the main meta-analyses. Evidence was available for seven of the nine fusion devices specified in the protocol and at high risk of bias. The meta-analyses show that patients undergoing software fusion biopsy may have: (1) a lower probability of being classified as not having cancer, (2) similar probability of being classified as having non-clinically significant cancer (International Society of Urological Pathology grade 1) and (3) higher probability of being classified at higher International Society of Urological Pathology grades, particularly International Society of Urological Pathology 2. Similar results were obtained when comparing between same biopsy methods where both were combined with systematic biopsy. Evidence was insufficient to conclude whether any individual devices were superior to cognitive fusion, or whether some software fusion technologies were superior to others. Uncertainty in the relative diagnostic accuracy of software fusion versus cognitive fusion reduce the strength of any statements on its cost-effectiveness. The economic analysis suggests incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for software fusion biopsy versus cognitive fusion are within the bounds of cost-effectiveness (£1826 and £5623 per additional quality-adjusted life-year with or with concomitant systematic biopsy, respectively), but this finding needs cautious interpretation.

Limitations

There was insufficient evidence to explore the impact of effect modifiers.

Conclusions

Software fusion biopsies may be associated with increased cancer detection in relation to cognitive fusion biopsies, but the evidence is at high risk of bias. Sufficiently powered, high-quality studies are required. Cost-effectiveness results should be interpreted with caution given the limitations of the diagnostic accuracy evidence.

Study registration

This trial is registered as PROSPERO CRD42022329259.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: 135477) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 61. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further information.

Role of Systematic Biopsy in the Era of Targeted Biopsy: A Review

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a major public health issue, as the second most common cancer and the fifth leading cause of cancer-related deaths among men. Many PCa cases are indolent and pose minimal risk, making active surveillance a suitable management approach. However, clinically significant prostate carcinoma (csPCa) can lead to serious health issues, including progression, metastasis, and death. Differentiating between insignificant prostate cancer (inPCa) and csPCa is crucial for determining appropriate treatment. Diagnosis of PCa primarily involves trans-perineal and transrectal systematic biopsies. Systematic transrectal prostate biopsy, which typically collects 10-12 tissue samples, is a standard method, but it can miss csPCa and is associated with some complications. Recent advancements, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsies, have been suggested to improve risk stratification and reduce overtreatment of inPCa and undertreatment of csPCa, thereby enhancing patient quality of life and treatment outcomes. Guided biopsies are increasingly recommended for their ability to better detect high-risk cancers while reducing identification of low-risk cases. MRI-targeted biopsies, especially when used as an initial biopsy in biopsy-naïve patients and those under active surveillance, have become more common. Utilization of MRI-TB alone can decrease septic complications; however, the combining of targeted biopsies with perilesional sampling is recommended for optimal detection of csPCa. Future advancements in imaging and biopsy techniques, including AI-augmented lesion detection and robotic-assisted sampling, promise to further improve the accuracy and effectiveness of PCa detection.

A novel nomogram to predict clinically significant prostate cancer in MR assisted lesion biopsies: Turkish urooncology association nomogram

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to develop a novel nomogram to predict clinically significant prostate cancer in patients undergoing multi-parametric prostate MRI-assisted lesion biopsies, addressing the challenges in deciding on biopsy for patients with PI-RADS 3 lesions and follow-up strategies for patients with negative PI-RADS 4 or 5 lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective case-control study was conducted using the Turkish Urooncology Association Databases (UROCaD). The final dataset included 2428 lesion biopsy data. Univariate analysis, logistic regression, and validation were performed, with 1942 and 486 lesion biopsy data in the training and validation datasets, respectively.

RESULTS

Age, initial total PSA value, PSA density, prostate volume, lesion length, DRE findings, and PI-RADS score were significantly different between benign or non-significant cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer groups. The developed nomogram incorporated PSA density, age, PI-RADS score, lesion length, and DRE findings. The mean area under the curve for the 6-fold cross-validation was 0.836, while the area under the curve values for the training and validation datasets were 0.827 and 0.861, respectively. The nomogram demonstrated a sensitivity of 75.6% and a specificity of 74.8% at a cut-off score of 24.9, with positive and negative predictive values of 42.2% and 92.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The TUA nomogram, based on PSA density, age, PI-RADS score, lesion length, and DRE findings, provides a reliable and accurate prediction tool for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in patients undergoing multi-parametric prostate MRI-assisted lesion (fusion) biopsies, potentially improving patient management and reducing unnecessary biopsies.

EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2024 Update. Part I: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines provide recommendations for the management of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa). This paper aims to present a summary of the 2024 version of the EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG guidelines on the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised PCa.

METHODS

The panel performed a literature review of all new data published in English, covering the time frame between May 2020 and 2023. The guidelines were updated, and a strength rating for each recommendation was added based on a systematic review of the evidence.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

A risk-adapted strategy for identifying men who may develop PCa is advised, generally commencing at 50 yr of age and based on individualised life expectancy. The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in order to avoid unnecessary biopsies is recommended. When a biopsy is considered, a combination of targeted and regional biopsies should be performed. Prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography imaging is the most sensitive technique for identifying metastatic spread. Active surveillance is the appropriate management for men with low-risk PCa, as well as for selected favourable intermediate-risk patients with International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 2 lesions. Local therapies are addressed, as well as the management of persistent prostate-specific antigen after surgery. A recommendation to consider hypofractionation in intermediate-risk patients is provided. Patients with cN1 PCa should be offered a local treatment combined with long-term intensified hormonal treatment.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The evidence in the field of diagnosis, staging, and treatment of localised PCa is evolving rapidly. These PCa guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of PCa management.

PATIENT SUMMARY

This article is the summary of the guidelines for "curable" prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is "found" through a multistep risk-based screening process. The objective is to find as many men as possible with a curable cancer. Prostate cancer is curable if it resides in the prostate; it is then classified into low-, intermediary-, and high-risk localised and locally advanced prostate cancer. These risk classes are the basis of the treatments. Low-risk prostate cancer is treated with "active surveillance", a treatment with excellent prognosis. For low-intermediary-risk active surveillance should also be discussed as an option. In other cases, active treatments, surgery, or radiation treatment should be discussed along with the potential side effects to allow shared decision-making.

MRI-Targeted Prostate Fusion Biopsy: What Are We Missing outside the Target? Implications for Treatment Planning

Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate the added diagnostic value of systematic biopsies (SBx) after magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsies (TBx) and the presence of prostate cancer (PCa) outside MRI targets, in a prospective, contemporary, multicentric series of fusion biopsy patients. Methods: We collected data on 962 consecutive patients who underwent fusion biopsy between 2022 and 2024. Prostate cancer was considered clinically significant (csPCa) in the case of grade ≥ 2. Median test and Fisher exact chi-square tests were used. To identify predictors of out-field positivity, univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed. Results: Prostate cancer and csPCa were detected by TBx only in 56% and 50%, respectively, and by SBx only in 55% and 45%, respectively (p < 0.001). Prostate cancer and csPCa were diagnosed by TBx in 100 (10%) and 82 (8%) SBx-negative cases and by SBx in 86 (9%) and 54 (6%) TBx-negative cases (p < 0.001). Tumors outside MRI targets were found in 213 (33%) cases in the same lobe and 208 (32%) in the contralateral lobe, most of them being csPCa. Predictors of out-field contralateral PCa were positive DRE (HR 1.50, p 0.03), PSA density ≥ 0.15 (HR 2.20, p < 0.001), and PI-RADS score 5 (HR 2.04, p 0.01). Conclusions: Both TBx and SBx identify a non-negligible proportion of csPCa when the other modality is negative. SBx after TBx should always be considered given the risk of missing other csPCa foci within the prostate, especially in patients with positive DRE, PSA density ≥ 0.15, and PIRADS 5 lesions.

[Prostate cancer screening-current overview]

BACKGROUND

The harm-to-benefit ratio of prostate cancer (PCa) screening remains controversial mainly due to the unfavorable test characteristics of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as a screening test.

METHODS

In this nonsystematic review, we present a current overview of the body of evidence on prostate cancer screening with a focus on the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate.

RESULTS

Evidence generated in large randomized controlled trials showed that PSA-based screening significantly decreases cancer-specific mortality. The main obstacle in developing and implementing PCa screening strategies is the resulting overdiagnosis and as a consequence overtreatment of indolent cancers. Opportunistic screening is characterized by an adverse benefit-to-harm ratio and should, therefore, not be recommended. The German Statutory Early Detection Program for prostate cancer, which consists of a digital rectal examination (DRE) as a stand-alone screening test, is not evidence-based, neither specific nor sensitive enough and results in unnecessary diagnostics. The European Commission recently urged member states to develop population-based and organized risk-adapted PSA-based screening programs, which are currently tested in the ongoing German PROBASE trial. Finetuning of the diagnostic pathway following PSA-testing seems key to improve its positive and negative predictive value and thereby making PCa screening more accurate. Incorporation of prostatic MRI into screening strategies leads to more accurate diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer, while diagnosis of indolent cancers is reduced. In the future, molecular liquid-based biomarkers have the potential to complement or even replace PSA in PCa screening and further personalize screening strategies. Active surveillance as an alternative to immediate radical therapy of demographically increasing PCa diagnoses can potentially further improve the benefit-to-harm ratio of organized screening.

CONCLUSION

Early detection of PCa should be organized on a population level into personalized and evidence-based screening strategies. Multiparametric MRI of the prostate may play a key role in this setting.

PIRADS≥4 MRI lesion: Is performing systematic biopsies still essential for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer?

INTRODUCTION

In the era of targeted prostate biopsies, the necessity of performing randomized biopsies systematically is under question. Our objective is to evaluate the rate of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), defined by presence of ISUP≥2 prostate cancer, diagnosed only on randomized cores in case of a PIRADS≥4 target lesion on MRI. The secondary objective is to evaluate whether specific variables can predict the presence of undetected csPCa in targeted biopsies.

METHODS

Retrospective data on targeted biopsies performed from 2015 to 2021 in our hospital were collected. Procedures were performed with MRI/Transrectal US fusion Trinity platform from Koelis®. All the MRI images were reviewed and the targets were classified using the PIRADS V2.1 classification. Inclusion criteria comprised procedures featuring at least one PIRADS≥4 targeted lesion were included. All procedures consisted 1-4 targeted cores and 12-core systematic biopsy.

RESULTS

We included 358 patients. In 44 patients (12.3%) csPCa was exclusively detected in randomized cores. Among these cases, only 12 patients (27.2%) showed no cancer on the targeted biopsies. Merely 4 patients (9.09%) lacked csPCa-positive cores on the same side as the index lesion. Factors such as PSA, PSA density, prostate volume, and digital rectal examination showed no significant association with the presence of csPCa exclusively on randomized cores. Likewise, the size, location, and PIRADS classification of the target demonstrated no significant impact.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that in 12.3% of cases, targeted biopsies alone are insufficient for detecting the presence of csPCa. As such, systematic biopsies remain necessary to date.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Developing a diagnostic model for predicting prostate cancer: a retrospective study based on Chinese multicenter clinical data

The overdiagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) caused by nonspecific elevation serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and the overtreatment of indolent PCa have become a global problem that needs to be solved urgently. We aimed to construct a prediction model and provide a risk stratification system to reduce unnecessary biopsies. In this retrospective study, clinical data of 1807 patients from three Chinese hospitals were used. The final model was built using stepwise logistic regression analysis. The apparent performance of the model was assessed by receiver operating characteristic curves, calibration plots, and decision curve analysis. Finally, a risk stratification system of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was created, and diagnosis-free survival analyses were performed. Following multivariable screening and evaluation of the diagnostic performances, a final diagnostic model comprised of the PSA density and Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score was established. Model validation in the development cohort and two external cohorts showed excellent discrimination and calibration. Finally, we created a risk stratification system using risk thresholds of 0.05 and 0.60 as the cut-off values. The follow-up results indicated that the diagnosis-free survival rate for csPCa at 12 months and 24 months postoperatively was 99.7% and 99.4%, respectively, for patients with a risk threshold below 0.05 after the initial negative prostate biopsy, which was significantly better than patients with higher risk. Our diagnostic model and risk stratification system can achieve a personalized risk calculation of csPCa. It provides a standardized tool for Chinese patients and physicians when considering the necessity of prostate biopsy.

Patient-related characteristics predict prostate cancers in men with PI-RADS 4-5 to further optimize the diagnostic performance of MRI

PURPOSE

To develop a prediction model based on patient-related characteristics for detecting prostate cancer (PCa) in patients with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 4-5 in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI), aiming to optimize pre-biopsy risk stratification in MRI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The patient-related characteristics including the lesion location, age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), free prostate-specific antigen (fPSA), fPSA/PSA, prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD) and body mass index (BMI) were collected for patients who underwent mp-MRI and prostate biopsy between February 2014 and October 2022. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to select independent predictors of PCa and further create a prediction model. The diagnostic performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Moreover, sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value (PPV) and negative-predictive value (NPV) were also calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 833 patients were included in this study. In the subgroup PI-RADS 4, the independent characteristics of lesion location, age, fPSA/PSA and PSAD were selected to create the prediction model with an AUC of 0.748 (95% CI 0.694-0.803), sensitivity of 61.88%, specificity of 85.32%, PPV of 92.52%, and NPV of 43.26%. Besides, the prediction model in PI-RADS 5 was created using PSA and PSAD with an AUC of 0.893 (95% CI 0.844-0.941), sensitivity of 81.40%, specificity of 84.85%, PPV of 98.37% and NPV of 28.87%.

CONCLUSION

The patient-related clinical characteristics were significant predictors of PCa and the prediction model based on selected characteristics could achieve a medium risk prediction of PCa in PI-RADS 4-5.

Role of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging on the surgical outcomes of radical prostatectomy: Does preoperative tumor recognition reduce the positive surgical margin in a specific location? Experience from a Thailand prostate cancer specialized center

Objective

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become the standard of care for the diagnosis of prostate cancer patients. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of preoperative MRI on the positive surgical margin (PSM) rates.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 1070 prostate cancer patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) at Siriraj Hospital between January 2013 and September 2019. PSM rates were compared between those with and without preoperative MRI. PSM locations were analyzed.

Results

In total, 322 (30.1%) patients underwent MRI before RP. PSM most frequently occurred at the apex (33.2%), followed by posterior (13.5%), bladder neck (12.7%), anterior (10.7%), posterolateral (9.9%), and lateral (2.3%) positions. In preoperative MRI, PSM was significantly lowered at the posterior surface (9.0% vs. 15.4%, p=0.01) and in the subgroup of urologists with less than 100 RP experiences (32% vs. 51%, odds ratio=0.51, p<0.05). Blood loss was also significantly decreased when a preoperative image was obtained (200 mL vs. 250 mL, p=0.02). Multivariate analysis revealed that only preoperative MRI status was associated with overall PSM and PSM at the prostatic apex. Neither the surgical approach, the neurovascular bundle sparing technique, nor the perioperative blood loss was associated with PSM.

Conclusion

MRI is associated with less overall PSM, PSM at apex, and blood loss during RP. Additionally, preoperative MRI has shown promise in lowering the PSM rate among urologists who are in the early stages of performing RP.

Effectiveness and Accuracy of MRI-Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsy Based on PI-RADS v2.1 Category in Transition/Peripheral Zone of the Prostate

BACKGROUND

MRI-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy (MRI-TBx) improves the clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection with fewer cores. However, whether systematic biopsy-guided by transrectal ultrasound (TRUS-SBx) can be omitted when undergoing MRI-TBx in transition zone (TZ) and peripheral zone (PZ) remains unclear.

PURPOSE

To assess the performance and effectiveness of MRI-TBx based on PI-RADS v2.1 for csPCa diagnosis in TZ and PZ, respectively.

STUDY TYPE

Retrospective.

SUBJECTS

A total of 309 selected cases (median age 70 years) with 356 lesions who underwent both MRI-TBx and TRUS-SBx were enrolled.

FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE

A 3.0 T, multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI) including T2-weighted turbo-spin echo imaging (T2WI), diffusion-weighted spin-echo echo planar imaging (DWI), dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI with time-resolved T1-weighted imaging (DCE).

ASSESSMENT

Mp-MRI was assessed by two radiologists using PI-RADS v2.1. The csPCa detection rates provided by MRI-TBx, TRUS-SBx and combined biopsy in TZ and PZ were calculated, respectively.

STATISTICAL TESTS

McNemar test was used to compare the csPCa detection rates in TZ and PZ, respectively. The frequencies and distribution of all detected prostate cancers by different biopsy methods were also compared. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Among 356 lesions in 309 patients, 208 (68 in TZ, 140 in PZ) were pathologically confirmed as csPCa. In TZ, there were significant differences for csPCa detection with PI-RADS 3 between combined biopsy and TRUS-SBx (23.5% vs. 15.3%), MRI-TBx (23.5% vs. 16.3%), respectively. MRI-TBx detected 23% (19/83) cases missed by TRUS-SBx in which 68% (13/19) were csPCa. In PZ, there were no statistical differences between MRI-TBx and combined biopsy with PI-RADS 3-5 (P = 0.21, 0.25, 0.07, respectively). In 9% (14/152) cases only detected by MRI-TBx, 86% (12/14) were clinically significant. Five percent (7/152) of cases only detected by TRUS-SBx were completely nonclinically significant.

DATA CONCLUSION

MRI-TBx played a positive role on csPCa diagnosis in TZ, but combined biopsy might be the best choice especially in the subgroup PI-RADS 3. In PZ, MRI-TBx had an advantage over TRUS-SBx for csPCa detection.

EVIDENCE LEVEL

2.

TECHNICAL EFFICACY

Stage 2.

Prostate Biopsy in the Case of PIRADS 5-Is Systematic Biopsy Mandatory?

Combining systematic biopsy (SB) with targeted biopsy (TB) in the case of a positive result from multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is a matter of debate. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) score of 5 indicates the highest probability of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC) detection in TB. Potentially, omitting SB in the case of PIRADS 5 may have a marginal impact on the csPC detection rate. The aim of this study was to determine whether SB can be avoided in the case of PIRADS 5 and to identify potential factors allowing for performing TB only. This cohort study involved n = 225 patients with PIRADS 5 on mpMRI (PIRADS 2.0/2.1) who underwent transperineal or transrectal combined biopsy (CB). CsPC was diagnosed in 51.6% (n = 116/225) of cases. TB and SB resulted in the detection of csPC in 48% (n = 108/225) and 20.4% (n = 46/225) of cases, respectively (TB vs. SB, p < 0.001). When the TB was positive, SB detected csPC in n = 38 of the cases (38/108 = 35%). SB added to TB significantly improved csPC detection in 6.9% of cases in absolute terms (n = 8/116) (TB vs. CB, p = 0.008). The multivariate regression model proved that the significant predictors of csPC detection via SB were the densities of the prostate-specific antigen-PSAD > 0.17 ng/mL2 (OR = 4.038, 95%CI: 1.568-10.398); primary biopsy setting (OR = 2.818, 95%CI: 1.334-5.952); and abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) (OR = 2.746, 95%CI: 1.328-5.678). In a primary biopsy setting (n = 103), SB detected 10% (n = 6/60) of the additional cases of csPC (p = 0.031), while in a repeat biopsy setting (n = 122), SB detected 3.5% (n = 2/56) of the additional cases of csPC (p = 0.5). In the case of PSAD > 0.17 ng/mL2 (n = 151), SB detected 7.4% (n = 7/95) of additional cases of csPC (p = 0.016), while in the case of PSAD < 0.17 ng/mL2 (n = 74), SB detected 4.8% (n = 1/21) of the additional cases of csPC (p = 1.0). The omission of SB had an impact on the csPC diagnosis rate in patients with PIRADS 5 score lesions. Patients who have already undergone prostate biopsy and those with low PSAD are at a lower risk of missing csPC when SB is avoided. However, performing TB only may result in missing other csPC foci located outside the index lesion, which can alter treatment decisions.

Prostate MRI and PSMA-PET in the Primary Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer

Over the last years, prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has gained a key role in the primary diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). While a negative MRI can avoid unnecessary prostate biopsies and the overdiagnosis of indolent cancers, a positive examination triggers biopsy samples targeted to suspicious imaging findings, thus increasing the diagnosis of csPCa with a sensitivity and negative predictive value of around 90%. The limitations of MRI, including suboptimal positive predictive values, are fueling debate on how to stratify biopsy decisions and management based on patient risk and how to correctly estimate it with clinical and/or imaging findings. In this setting, "next-generation imaging" imaging based on radiolabeled Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA)-Positron Emission Tomography (PET) is expanding its indications both in the setting of primary staging (intermediate-to-high risk patients) and primary diagnosis (e.g., increasing the sensitivity of MRI or acting as a problem-solving tool for indeterminate MRI cases). This review summarizes the current main evidence on the role of prostate MRI and PSMA-PET as tools for the primary diagnosis of csPCa, and the different possible interaction pathways in this setting.

Optimizing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy and detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: the role of core number and location

PURPOSE

There is currently no consensus regarding the optimal number of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy (TB) cores and their spatial distribution within the MRI lesion. We aim to determine the number of TB cores and location needed to adequately detect csPCa.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 505 consecutive patients undergoing TB for positive MRI lesions defined by a PI-RADS score ≥ 3 between June 2016 and January 2022. Cores chronology and locations were prospectively recorded. The co-primary outcomes were the first core to detect clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and the first highest ISUP grade group. The incremental benefit of each additional core was evaluated. Analysis was then performed by distinguishing central (cTB) and peripheral (pTB) within the MRI lesion.

RESULTS

Overall, csPCa was detected in 37% of patients. To reach a csPCa detection rate of 95%, a 3-core strategy was required, except for patients with PI-RADS 5 lesions and those with PSA density ≥ 0.2 ng/ml/cc who benefited from a fourth TB core. At multivariable analysis, only a PSA density ≥ 0.2 ng/ml/cc was an independent predictive factor of having the highest ISUP grade group on the fourth TB cores (p = 0.03). No significant difference in the cancer detection rate was found between cTB and pTB (p = 0.9). Omitting pTB would miss 18% of all csPCa.

CONCLUSION

A 3-core strategy should be considered for TB to optimize csPCa detection with additional cores needed for PI-RADS 5 lesions and high PSA density. Biopsy cores from both central and peripheral zones are required.

Comparison of prostate cancer detection rate at targeted biopsy of hub and spoke centers mpMRI: experience matters

BACKGROUND

Latest changes in European guidelines on prostate cancer determined a widespread of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) even in less experienced centers due to an increased demand. This could decrease diagnostic accuracy of targeted biopsy (TB) since image interpretation can be challenging and requires adequate and supervised training. Therefore we aimed to evaluate the prostate cancer (PCa) detection rate on TB according to mpMRI center's volume and experience.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data of 737 patients who underwent mpMRI-TB at our institution. Patients were stratified according to mpMRI center: Hub (high volume >100 exams/year with dedicated radiologists and supervised training) and Spoke center (low volume <100 exams/year without dedicated radiologists and/or supervised training). Detection rate of PCa at TB and possible predictors of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) at TB. Differences in detection rate were explored using Chi-square test. Predictors of csPCa were evaluated through uni and multivariable logistic regression. The adjustment for casemix included: age, PSA, mpMRI center, lesion's location, PSA density, PI-RADS score and index lesion's size.

RESULTS

Four hundred forty-nine (60.9%) and 288 (39.1%) patients underwent mpMRI at a Hub or Spoke center, respectively. Hub group had higher detection rate for both any (60.3% vs. 48.1%) and csPCa (46.9% vs 38.7%; all P≤0.001). After stratifying for PI-RADS score, Hub group had higher detection rate for PI-RADS score 3 (csPCA 25.2% vs. 15.7%; p 0.04) and 4 (csPCa 65.7% vs. 45.7%; P=0.001). At multivariable analyses, receiving an mpMRI scan at a Spoke center was an independent predictor for csPCa on TB (OR 0.65; P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

mpMRI performed in Hub centers provided a significantly higher PCa yield on TB. A dedicated team of experienced radiologist, a supervised training for mpMRI and a central revision of mpMRI performed in non-experienced centres are essential to avoid unnecessary and potentially harmful procedures.

Prostate biopsy in the era of MRI-targeting: towards a judicious use of additional systematic biopsy

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.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guided Prostate Biopsy in Patients with ≥ One Negative Systematic Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

The present study aimed to compare prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) detection sensitivity between magnetic resonance imaging guided-biopsy (MRI-GB) and transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-GB) in patients with ≥ 1 negative TRUS-GB, and to explore the additive value of TRUS-GB to MRI-GB. The meta-analysis of 18 studies demonstrated that MRI-GB had a similar sensitivity for PCa detection but a higher sensitivity for csPCa than TRUS-GB. In conclusion, there was limited value in combining TRUS-GB with MRI-GB compared with MRI-GB alone for csPCa detection in patients with one or more negative TRUS-GBs that were suspicious of having PCa.

Evidence-based guideline recommendations on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer: A Cancer Care Ontario updated clinical practice guideline

INTRODUCTION

This clinical practice guideline is based on a systematic review to assess the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) for biopsy-naive men and men with a prior negative transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy (TRUS-SB) at elevated risk.

METHODS

The methods of the clinical practice guideline included searches to September of 2020 of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Internal and external reviews were conducted.

RESULTS

The recommendations are:Recommendation 1: For biopsy-naive patients at elevated risk of csPCa, mpMRI is recommended prior to biopsy in patients who are candidates for curative management with suspected clinically localized prostate cancer.- If the mpMRI is positive, mpMRI-targeted biopsy (TB) and TRUS-SB should be performed together to maximize detection of csPCa.- If the mpMRI is negative, consider forgoing any biopsy after discussion of the risks and benefits with the patient as part of shared decision-making and ongoing followup.Recommendation 2: In patients who had a prior negative TRUS-SB and demonstrate a high risk of having csPCa in whom curative management is being considered:- mpMRI should be performed.- If the mpMRI is positive, targeted biopsy should be performed. Concomitant TRUS-SB can be considered depending on the patient's risk profile and time since prior TRUS-SB biopsy.- If the mpMRI is negative, consider forgoing a TRUS-SB only after discussion of the risks and benefits with the patient as part of shared decision-making and ongoing followup.Recommendation 3: mpMRI should be performed and interpreted in compliance with the current Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS) guidelines.

Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy techniques compared to transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Multiparametric MRI localizes cancer in the prostate, allowing for MRI guided biopsy (MRI-GB) 43 alongside transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy (TRUS-GB). Three MRI-GB approaches exist; visual estimation (COG-TB); fusion software-assisted (FUS-TB) and MRI ‘in-bore’ biopsy (IB-TB). It is unknown whether any of these are superior.

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to address three questions. First, whether MRI-GB is superior to TRUS-GB at detecting clinically significant PCa (csPCa). Second, whether MRI-GB is superior to TRUS-GB at avoiding detection of insignificant PCa. Third, whether any MRI-GB strategy is superior at detecting csPCa.

Methods

A systematic literature review from 2015 to 2019 was performed in accordance with the START recommendations. Studies reporting PCa detection rates, employing MRI-GB and TRUS-GB were included and evaluated using the QUADAS-2 checklist. 1553 studies were found, of which 43 were included in the meta-analysis.

Results

For csPCa, MRI-GB was superior in detection to TRUS-GB (0.83 vs. 0.63 [p = 0.02]). MRI-GB was superior in detection to TRUS-GB at avoiding detection of insignificant PCa. No MRI-GB technique was superior at detecting csPCa (IB-TB 0.87; COG TB 0.81; FUS-TB 0.81, [p = 0.55]). There was significant heterogeneity observed between the included studies.

Conclusions

In patients with suspected PCa on MRI, MRI-GB offers superior rates of csPCa detection and reduces detection of insignificant PCa compared to TRUS-GB. No individual MRI-GB technique was found to be better in csPCa detection. Prospective adequately powered randomized controlled trials are required.

Systematic biopsy should not be omitted in the era of combined magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsies of the prostate

PURPOSE

To evaluate prostate cancer detection rates with classical trans-rectal ultrasound-guided systematic 10-core biopsies (SB), targeted biopsies (TB) guided by magnetic resonance (MR)/US fusion imaging and their combination in biopsy-naïve and patients with previously negative prostate biopsies. We compared pathology results after radical prostatectomy with biopsy findings.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with prostate imaging-reporting and data system lesions grade ≥ 3 submitted to MRI/US-guided TB and subsequent standard 10-core SB between December 2015 and June 2019 were analyzed.

RESULTS

Detection rate (TB- or SB-positive) in 563 included patients (192 naïve, 371 with previous biopsies) was 56.7% (67.7% for the first, 50.9% for repeated biopsies). With TB (disregarding SB), the rates were 41.4%, 52.1% and 35.8%, respectively. With SB (disregarding TB), the rates were 49.1%, 63.0% and 41.8%, respectively. Eventually, 118 patients underwent surgery and clinically significant cancer was found in 111 (94.1%) specimens. Of those, 23 (20.7%) would have been missed had we relied upon a negative TB and 14 (12.6%) would have been missed had we relied upon a negative SB, disregarding a positive finding on the alternative biopsy template.

CONCLUSION

SB should not be omitted since TB and SB combination have higher detection rate of clinically relevant prostate cancer than either procedure alone.

Enhanced antibiotic prophylaxis and infection-related complications following prostate biopsy

PURPOSE

Sepsis after prostate biopsy is a costly and potentially lethal complication. We sought to assess whether enhanced antibiotic prophylaxis regimens combining oral and parenteral antibiotics may decrease the risk of post-biopsy urinary tract infection and sepsis compared to regimens with only oral antibiotics.

METHODS

We identified men with commercial insurance who underwent prostate biopsy (2009-2015) with prophylactic antibiotic coverage. Our primary exposure of interest was antibiotic regimen: enhanced, oral-only, and parenteral-only. Post-biopsy outcomes of interest included urinary tract infections and sepsis/bacteremia after prostate biopsy. We used bivariate testing to assess associations between outcomes, exposures, and other covariates of interest. Multivariable regression was used to estimate adjusted odds of infectious outcomes based on antibiotic regimen.

RESULTS

We identified 163,831 men who underwent prostate biopsy. The proportion of men with infectious complications (5.5% in 2009 to 6.9% in 2015, p < 0.001) and sepsis (0.24% in 2009 to 0.30% in 2015, p = 0.327) increased over the timeframe of our analysis. Use of fluoroquinolones was associated with a decreased risk of infectious outcomes (5.8 vs 7.3% without, OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.79-0.88). Use of enhanced antibiotic regimens was associated with an increased risk of infectious outcomes (6.8 vs 5.7% oral, OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.16-1.31) and sepsis (0.34 vs 0.24% oral, OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.08-1.82) among our cohort.

CONCLUSION

We did not observe a significant reduction in infectious complications among men who received enhanced antibiotics regimens before prostate biopsy. This may be due to increased antibiotic resistance or unmeasured risk factors among those receiving enhanced regimens.

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: an Updated Systematic Review

There has been growing utilisation of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MPMRI) as a non-invasive tool to diagnose and localise clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa). This updated systematic review examines the use of MPMRI in patients with an elevated risk of CSPCa who have had a prior negative transrectal ultrasound systematic biopsy (TRUS-SB) and who were biopsy naïve. MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for existing systematic reviews published up to September 2020. The literature search of the electronic databases combined disease-specific terms (prostate cancer, prostate carcinoma, etc.) and treatment-specific terms (magnetic resonance, etc.). Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MPMRI to template transperineal mapping biopsy (TPMB) or to TRUS-SB. Thirty-six RCTs were eligible. For biopsy-naïve men, accuracy of diagnosis of CSPCa showed sensitivities from 87 to 96% and specificities ranging from 29 to 45%. Meta-analyses for CSPCa showed increased detection favouring MPMRI-targeted biopsy over TRUS-SB by 3% (95% confidence interval 0-7%, P = 0.03) and decreased detection of clinically insignificant prostate cancer (CISPCa) favouring MPMRI by 8% (95% confidence interval -11 to 5%, P < 0.00001). Accuracy of MPMRI for men with prior negative biopsy showed sensitivities of 78-100% and specificities of 30-100%. Meta-analyses comparing MPMRI to TRUS-SB showed increased detection of 5% (95% confidence interval 3-7%, P < 0.0001) with a reduction of CISPCa detection of 7% (95% confidence interval 4-9%, P < 0.00001). The growing acceptance of MPMRI utilisation internationally and the recent publication of several RCTs regarding MPMRI in reducing CISPCa detection rates, particularly in biopsy-naïve men, without loss of sensitivity for CSPCa necessitates the synthesis of updated evidence examining MPMRI in the diagnosis of CSPCa.

A European Model for an Organised Risk-stratified Early Detection Programme for Prostate Cancer

CONTEXT

Overdiagnosis as the argument to stop prostate cancer (PCa) screening is less valid since the introduction of new technologies such as risk calculators (RCs) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). These new technologies result in fewer unnecessary biopsy procedures and fewer cases of both overdiagnosis and underdetection. Therefore, we can now adequately respond to the growing and urgent need for a structured risk assessment to detect PCa early.

OBJECTIVE

To provide expert discussion on the existing evidence for a previously published risk-stratified strategy regarding an organised population-based early detection programme for PCa.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The proposed algorithm for early detection of PCa emerged from expert consensus by the authors based on available evidence derived from a nonsystematic review of the current literature using Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library database, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN Registry, and the European Association of Urology guidelines on PCa.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Although not confirmed by the highest level of evidence, current literature and guidelines point towards an algorithm for early detection of PCa that starts with risk-based prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, followed by multivariable risk stratification with RCs. All men who are classified to be at intermediate and high risk are then offered prostate MRI. The combined data from RCs and MRI results can be used to select men for prostate biopsy. Low-risk men return to a risk-based safety net that includes individualised PSA-interval tests and, if necessary, repeated MRI. Depending on local availability, the use of the different risk stratification tools may be adapted.

CONCLUSIONS

We present a risk-stratified algorithm for an organised population-based early detection programme for clinically significant PCa. Although the proposed strategy has not yet been analysed prospectively, it exploits and may even improve the most important available benefits of "PSA-only" screening studies, while at the same time reduces unnecessary biopsies and overdiagnosis by using new risk stratification tools.

PATIENT SUMMARY

This paper presents a personalised strategy that enables selective early detection of prostate cancer by combining prostate-specific antigen (interval) testing' prediction models (risk calculators), and magnetic resonance imaging scans. This will likely lead to reduced prostate cancer-related morbidity and mortality, while reducing the need for prostate biopsy and limiting overdiagnosis.

ESUR/ESUI position paper: developing artificial intelligence for precision diagnosis of prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

Artificial intelligence developments are essential to the successful deployment of community-wide, MRI-driven prostate cancer diagnosis. AI systems should ensure that the main benefits of biopsy avoidance are delivered while maintaining consistent high specificities, at a range of disease prevalences. Since all current artificial intelligence / computer-aided detection systems for prostate cancer detection are experimental, multiple developmental efforts are still needed to bring the vision to fruition. Initial work needs to focus on developing systems as diagnostic supporting aids so their results can be integrated into the radiologists’ workflow including gland and target outlining tasks for fusion biopsies. Developing AI systems as clinical decision-making tools will require greater efforts. The latter encompass larger multicentric, multivendor datasets where the different needs of patients stratified by diagnostic settings, disease prevalence, patient preference, and clinical setting are considered. AI-based, robust, standard operating procedures will increase the confidence of patients and payers, thus enabling the wider adoption of the MRI-directed approach for prostate cancer diagnosis.

Key Points

• AI systems need to ensure that the benefits of biopsy avoidance are delivered with consistent high specificities, at a range of disease prevalence.

• Initial work has focused on developing systems as diagnostic supporting aids for outlining tasks, so they can be integrated into the radiologists’ workflow to support MRI-directed biopsies.

• Decision support tools require a larger body of work including multicentric, multivendor studies where the clinical needs, disease prevalence, patient preferences, and clinical setting are additionally defined.

Limitations of overlapping cores in systematic and MRI-US fusion biopsy

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinically-significant prostate cancer (csCaP) detection rate of systematic (SBx) vs. targeted biopsy (TBx), after accounting for the overlapping systematic cores within the MRI regions of interest.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified 398 consecutive men who underwent both transperineal systematic and targeted biopsy between January 2015 to January 2019. We reclassified overlapping systematic cores in the MRI regions of interest as target cores. The detection rates of SBx and TBx were compared using McNemar's test.

RESULTS

Detection rate of csCaP (grade group ≥2) was 42% (168/398). Median number of systematic and targeted cores were 23 (IQR 19-29) and 9 (IQR 6-12) respectively. A median of 3 (IQR 2-4) overlapping systematic cores were reclassified as targeted cores. After accounting for overlap, csPC detection rate on SBx decreased from 37% and 21% while the csCaP detection rate of TBx increased from 34% to 39% (both P < 0.001), with TBx having a better detection rate (39% vs. 21%, P < 0.001). A previous negative biopsy was associated with a lower risk of having csCaP on non-targeted SBx (OR 0.27, 95% CI: 0.12 - 0.58, P = 0.001). Only 5% (13/243) of those who had no cancer detected on TBx had csCaP on non-targeted SBx compared to 45% (70/155) of those who had csCaP on TBx (P< 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The utility of SBx in detecting csCaP decreases after accounting for overlap into the MRI region of interest, especially in men with a prior negative biopsy. Overlapping systematic cores improve the csCaP detection rate on TBx.

Diagnostic performance of MRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsies vs. systematic prostate biopsies in biopsy-naïve, previous negative biopsy patients and men undergoing active surveillance

BACKGROUND

We aimed to assess the detection rate of overall PCa and csPCa, and the clinical impact of MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy (FUSION-TB) compared to TRUS guided systematic biopsy (SB) in patients with different biopsy settings.

METHODS

Three hundred and five patients were submitted to FUSION-TB, divided into three groups: biopsy naïve patients, previous negative biopsies and patients under active surveillance (AS). All patients had a single suspicious index lesion at mpMRI. Within these groups, we enrolled men underwent both to FUSION-TB and SB in the same session. Overall detection rate of PCa and csPCa for the two biopsy methods were compared separately between the three groups of patients.

RESULTS

No differences were observed between the three groups concerning clinical and radiological characteristics. We found no differences in terms of overall PCa detection (66% vs. 63.8%, P=0.617) and csPCa detection (56.4% vs. 51.1%; P=0.225) concerning biopsy naïve patients. In patients previously submitted to a negative biopsy, FUSION-TB showed higher detection rate of csPCa compared to SB alone (41,3% vs. 27% respectively, P=0.038). In patients under AS, no differences were observed between FUSION-TB and SB in terms of overall PCa (50% vs. 73.1%) and csPCa (30.8% vs. 26.9%, respectively; P=0.705) detection.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that in men with previously negative biopsy, FUSION-TB showed significantly higher diagnostic performance for clinically significant PCa as compared to SB. Combination of FUSION-TB and SB should be recommended in AS population to offer higher chance of csPCa diagnosis.

Comparative Effectiveness of Techniques in Targeted Prostate Biopsy

Simple Summary

Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers in men. Traditionally, prostate cancer is diagnosed via transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy, using a systematic random template. Using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, lesions suspicious for prostate cancer can be identified, and subsequently targeted on biopsy, allowing for increased diagnostic accuracy. This article reviewed the current literature surrounding various types of targeted biopsy, such as transperineal biopsy, allowing for comparison not only between targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy, but also between different varieties of targeted biopsy.

Abstract

In this review, we evaluated literature regarding different modalities for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and mpMRI-targeted biopsy (TB) for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa). We identified studies evaluating systematic biopsy (SB) and TB in the same patient, thereby allowing each patient to serve as their own control. Although the evidence supports the accuracy of TB, there is still a proportion of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) that is detected only in SB, indicating the importance of maintaining SB in the diagnostic pathway, albeit with additional cost and morbidity. There is a growing subset of data which supports the role of TB alone, which may allow for increased efficiency and decreased complications. We also compared the literature on transrectal (TR) vs. transperineal (TP) TB. Although further high-level evidence is necessary, current evidence supports similar csPCa detection rate for both approaches. We also evaluated various TB techniques such as cognitive fusion biopsy (COG-TB) and in-bore biopsy (IB-TB). COG-TB has comparable detection rates to software fusion, but is operator-dependent and may have reduced accuracy for smaller lesions. IB-TB may allow for greater precision as lesions are directly targeted; however, this is costly and time-consuming, and does not account for MRI-invisible lesions.

Positive Predictive Value of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

The variability of the positive predictive value (PPV) represents a significant factor affecting the diagnostic performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI).

OBJECTIVE

To analyze published studies reporting mpMRI PPV and the reasons behind the variability of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection rates on targeted biopsies (TBx) according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 categories.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A search of PubMed, Cochrane library's Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Scopus databases, from January 2015 to June 2020, was conducted. The primary and secondary outcomes were to evaluate the PPV of PI-RADS version 2 in detecting csPCa and any prostate cancer (PCa), respectively. Individual authors' definitions for csPCa and PI-RADS thresholds for positive mpMRI were accepted. Detection rates, used as a surrogate of PPV, were pooled using random-effect models. Preplanned subgroup analyses tested PPV after stratification for PI-RADS scores, previous biopsy status, TBx technique, and number of sampled cores. PPV variation over cancer prevalence was evaluated.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Fifty-six studies, with a total of 16 537 participants, were included in the quantitative synthesis. The PPV of suspicious mpMRI for csPCa was 40% (95% confidence interval 36-43%), with large heterogeneity between studies (I² 94%, p < 0.01). PPV increased according to PCa prevalence. In subgroup analyses, PPVs for csPCa were 13%, 40%, and 69% for, respectively, PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 (p < 0.001). TBx missed 6%, 6%, and 5% of csPCa in PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions, respectively. In biopsy-naïve and prior negative biopsy groups, PPVs for csPCa were 42% and 32%, respectively (p = 0.005). Study design, TBx technique, and number of sampled cores did not affect PPV.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis underlines that the PPV of mpMRI is strongly dependent on the disease prevalence, and that the main factors affecting PPV are PI-RADS version 2 scores and prior biopsy status. A substantially low PPV for PI-RADS 3 lesions was reported, while it was still suboptimal in PI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions. Lastly, even if the added value of a systematic biopsy for csPCa is relatively low, this rate can improve patient risk assessment and staging.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Targeted biopsy of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 lesions should be considered carefully in light of additional individual risk assessment corroborating the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer. On the contrary, the positive predictive value of highly suspicious lesions is not high enough to omit systematic prostate sampling.

How should radiologists incorporate non-imaging prostate cancer biomarkers into daily practice?

OBJECTIVE

To review the current body of evidence surrounding non-imaging biomarkers in patients with known or suspected prostate cancer.

RESULTS

Several non-imaging biomarkers have been developed and are available that aim to improve risk estimates at several clinical junctures. For patients with suspicion of prostate cancer who are considering first-time or repeat biopsy, blood- and urine-based assays can improve the prediction of harboring clinically significant disease and may reduce unnecessary biopsy. Blood- and urine-based biomarkers have been evaluated in association with prostate MRI, offering insights that might augment decision-making in the pre and post-MRI setting. Tissue-based genomic and proteomic assays have also been developed that provide independent assessments of prostate cancer aggressiveness that can complement imaging.

CONCLUSION

A growing number of non-imaging biomarkers are available to assist in clinical decision-making for men with known or suspected prostate cancer. An appreciation for the intersection of imaging and biomarkers may improve clinical care and resource utilization for men with prostate cancer.

Should we perform systematic biopsies in case of suspicious MRI for prostate cancer in 2020? A review of literature

CONTEXT

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is now recommended before performing prostate biopsies, looking for suspicious lesions to perform targeted biopsies (TB). However, the association or exclusive performance of systematic biopsies (SB), criticized for its morbidity and for the detection of insignificant cancers, remains debated.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a literature review to answer three questions: (1) In the presence of a suspicious MRI lesion, should we always perform SB in addition to TB? (2) Can we avoid SB when considering focal treatment? (3) Is there an increase in adverse events when associating SB with TB?

SOURCES

A non-systematic literature review was carried out on Medline in April 2020 using the keywords "MRI", "PROSTATE CANCER", "SYSTEMATIC BIOPSY", "TARGETED BIOPSY", "ADVERSE EVENTS". The references of the selected articles were analyzed for additional articles. Selection of Studies published in the last five years were analyzed and retained if the available data made it possible to answer one of the three questions asked.

RESULTS

In biopsy-naive patients, the added value of SB to TB for detection of significative cancer varied from +5 to+7% and was reduced to +1 to +3% in the case of a previous series of negative biopsies. For patients under active surveillance, this added value was higher, ranging from +8% to +17%. MRI has a negative predictive value of 85 to 95%, but this value drops to 55% for the detection of secondary or tertiary foci. The use of SB is necessary if focal treatment is considered. Serious complications from biopsies requiring hospitalization range from 1.4 to 6.9% and are increased by the number of previous biopsy series performed more than by the number of biopsies per series.

CONCLUSION

In the presence of a suspicious MRI lesion, SB is indicated in addition to TB but can be discussed in patients with previous negative biopsies. They are necessary if focal treatment is considered to aid surgical planning. Severe complications from biopsies do not seem to increase when SB are associated to TB, but rather with the number of biopsy series performed.

Effect of information on prostate biopsy history on biopsy outcomes in the era of MRI-targeted biopsies

Purpose

To describe the predictive value of information on previous benign biopsy for the outcome of MRI-targeted biopsies.

Methods

An exploratory analysis was conducted using data from a prospective, multicenter, paired diagnostic study of 532 men undergoing diagnostics for prostate cancer during 2016–2017. All men underwent 1.5 T MRI; systematic prostate biopsies; and MRI-targeted biopsies to MRI lesions with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2, PI-RADS ≥ 3. The main outcome was numbers of detected prostate cancer characterized by grade group (GG) where GG ≥ 2 defined clinically significant cancer (csPCa).

Results

Men with previous biopsies had significantly more often negative MRI (26% vs. 17%, p < 0.05) compared to men without previous biopsies. Men with previous biopsies showed higher rates of benign biopsies (41% vs. 26%, p < 0.05) and lower rates of GG2 (17% vs. 30%, p < 0.05) and GG ≥ 3 (5% vs. 10%, p < 0.05) cancer. Biopsy-naïve men had higher proportions of highly suspicious MRI lesions (PIRADS 5; p < 0.05) and a higher proportion of significant cancer in those lesions (p = 0.05). In multivariate regression analysis, a previous benign prostate biopsy was associated with less than half the odds of csPCa (OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.20–0.71).

Conclusion

In this large prospective multicenter trial, we showed that men with a previous prostate biopsy had higher proportions of MRIs without lesions and lower proportion of highly suspicious lesions than biopsy-naïve men. Further, biopsy-naïve men showed higher detection of clinically significant cancer when using MRI-targeted biopsies. Also, in the era of MRI-targeted biopsy strategies, biopsy history should be carefully considered in biopsy decisions.

Trial registration

NCT02788825 (ClinicalTrials.gov). Date of registration June 2, 2016.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00345-020-03277-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

MRI-Targeted, Systematic, and Combined Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis

BACKGROUND

The use of 12-core systematic prostate biopsy is associated with diagnostic inaccuracy that contributes to both overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis of prostate cancer. Biopsies performed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) targeting may reduce the misclassification of prostate cancer in men with MRI-visible lesions.

METHODS

Men with MRI-visible prostate lesions underwent both MRI-targeted and systematic biopsy. The primary outcome was cancer detection according to grade group (i.e., a clustering of Gleason grades). Grade group 1 refers to clinically insignificant disease; grade group 2 or higher, cancer with favorable intermediate risk or worse; and grade group 3 or higher, cancer with unfavorable intermediate risk or worse. Among the men who underwent subsequent radical prostatectomy, upgrading and downgrading of grade group from biopsy to whole-mount histopathological analysis of surgical specimens were recorded. Secondary outcomes were the detection of cancers of grade group 2 or higher and grade group 3 or higher, cancer detection stratified by previous biopsy status, and grade reclassification between biopsy and radical prostatectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 2103 men underwent both biopsy methods; cancer was diagnosed in 1312 (62.4%) by a combination of the two methods (combined biopsy), and 404 (19.2%) underwent radical prostatectomy. Cancer detection rates on MRI-targeted biopsy were significantly lower than on systematic biopsy for grade group 1 cancers and significantly higher for grade groups 3 through 5 (P<0.01 for all comparisons). Combined biopsy led to cancer diagnoses in 208 more men (9.9%) than with either method alone and to upgrading to a higher grade group in 458 men (21.8%). However, if only MRI-target biopsies had been performed, 8.8% of clinically significant cancers (grade group ≥3) would have been misclassified. Among the 404 men who underwent subsequent radical prostatectomy, combined biopsy was associated with the fewest upgrades to grade group 3 or higher on histopathological analysis of surgical specimens (3.5%), as compared with MRI-targeted biopsy (8.7%) and systematic biopsy (16.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with MRI-visible lesions, combined biopsy led to more detection of all prostate cancers. However, MRI-targeted biopsy alone underestimated the histologic grade of some tumors. After radical prostatectomy, upgrades to grade group 3 or higher on histopathological analysis were substantially lower after combined biopsy. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others; Trio Study ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00102544.).