Managing Discordant Findings Between Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-directed Prostate Biopsy-The Key Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-directed Transperineal Biopsy

Risk calculators for the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCa) (early) detection poses significant challenges, including unnecessary testing and the risk of potential overdiagnosis. The European Association of Urology therefore suggests an individual risk-adapted approach, incorporating risk calculators (RCs) into the PCa detection pathway. In the context of 'The PRostate Cancer Awareness and Initiative for Screening in the European Union' (PRAISE-U) project ( https://uroweb.org/praise-u ), we aim to provide an overview of the currently available clinical RCs applicable in an early PCa detection algorithm.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review to identify RCs predicting detection of clinically significant PCa at biopsy. A search was performed in the databases Medline ALL, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar for publications between January 2010 and July 2023. We retrieved relevant literature by using the terms "prostate cancer", "screening/diagnosis" and "predictive model". Inclusion criteria included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical trials. Exclusion criteria applied to studies involving pre-targeted high-risk populations, diagnosed PCa patients, or a sample sizes under 50 men.

RESULTS

We identified 6474 articles, of which 140 were included after screening abstracts and full texts. In total, we identified 96 unique RCs. Among these, 45 underwent external validation, with 28 validated in multiple cohorts. Of the externally validated RCs, 17 are based on clinical factors, 19 incorporate clinical factors along with MRI details, 4 were based on blood biomarkers alone or in combination with clinical factors, and 5 included urinary biomarkers. The median AUC of externally validated RCs ranged from 0.63 to 0.93.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review offers an extensive analysis of currently available RCs, their variable utilization, and performance within validation cohorts. RCs have consistently demonstrated their capacity to mitigate the limitations associated with early detection and have been integrated into modern practice and screening trials. Nevertheless, the lack of external validation data raises concerns about numerous RCs, and it is crucial to factor in this omission when evaluating whether a specific RC is applicable to one's target population.

MRI in-bore biopsy following MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy in patients with persistent suspicion of clinically significant prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Patients with suspicion of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC) on multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI) but negative or inconclusive MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy (FB) can be challenging in clinical practice. To assess the utility of MRI in-bore biopsy (IB) in patients with discordant imaging and histopathological findings after FB.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) category 4 or 5 on mpMRI at 3T after FB without histologically confirmed csPC who underwent IB between 01/2014 and 05/2022, were retrospectively included. The primary objective was to assess the detection rate of csPC. Secondary objectives were to analyze clinical parameters, MRI parameters, and lesion localization.

RESULTS

In the final cohort of 51 patients, the IB resulted in an overall detection rate of 71% for PC and 47% for csPC. Furthermore, in 55% of cases with initial low-grade PC, the Gleason score was upgraded after IB. CsPC was often detected apical and/or anterior. The detection rate for PC was 58% in PI-RADS category 4 and 94% in PI-RADS category 5 (csPC 39% and 61%, respectively). Patients with csPC had statistically significant smaller prostate volumes, a higher PI-RADS category, a higher prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD), and were older.

CONCLUSIONS

For a relevant proportion of patients with PI-RADS category 4 or 5 and negative or inconclusive findings on previous FB, but with persistent suspicion of csPC, a subsequent IB verified the presence of csPC. Therefore, IB can be a backup in cases of uncertainty.

Transperineal vs transrectal magnetic resonance and ultrasound image fusion prostate biopsy: a pair-matched comparison

The objective of this study was to compare transperineal (TP) versus transrectal (TR) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy (PBx). Consecutive men who underwent prostate MRI followed by a systematic biopsy. Additional target biopsies were performed from Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PIRADS) 3-5 lesions. Men who underwent TP PBx were matched 1:2 with a synchronous cohort undergoing TR PBx by PSA, Prostate volume (PV) and PIRADS score. Endpoint of the study was the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa; Grade Group ≥ 2). Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed. Results were considered statistically significant if p < 0.05. Overall, 504 patients met the inclusion criteria. A total of 168 TP PBx were pair-matched to 336 TR PBx patients. Baseline demographics and imaging characteristics were similar between the groups. Per patient, the CSPCa detection was 2.1% vs 6.3% (p = 0.4) for PIRADS 1-2, and 59% vs 60% (p = 0.9) for PIRADS 3-5, on TP vs TR PBx, respectively. Per lesion, the CSPCa detection for PIRADS 3 (21% vs 16%; p = 0.4), PIRADS 4 (51% vs 44%; p = 0.8) and PIRADS 5 (76% vs 84%; p = 0.3) was similar for TP vs TR PBx, respectively. However, the TP PBx showed a longer maximum cancer core length (11 vs 9 mm; p = 0.02) and higher cancer core involvement (83% vs 65%; p < 0.001) than TR PBx. Independent predictors for CSPCa detection were age, PSA, PV, abnormal digital rectal examination findings, and PIRADS 3-5. Our study demonstrated transperineal MRI/TRUS fusion PBx provides similar CSPCa detection, with larger prostate cancer core length and percent of core involvement, than transrectal PBx.

Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Is the New Black: What Are the Next Targets?

Transperineal biopsy is recommended as the first-choice technique for diagnosis of prostate cancer owing to lower rates of postprocedural sepsis. However, unresolved issues such as biopsy quality, lack of a systematic biopsy template, cost-effectiveness, and the risk of acute urine retention are yet to be resolved by the urological community.

Value of PET imaging for radiation therapy

This comprehensive review written by experts in their field gives an overview on the current status of incorporating positron emission tomography (PET) into radiation treatment planning. Moreover, it highlights ongoing studies for treatment individualisation and per-treatment tumour response monitoring for various primary tumours. Novel tracers and image analysis methods are discussed. The authors believe this contribution to be of crucial value for experts in the field as well as for policy makers deciding on the reimbursement of this powerful imaging modality.