1
|
Morote J, Paesano N, Picola N, Miró B, Abascal JM, Servian P, Trilla E, Méndez O. Comparing Two Targeted Biopsy Schemes for Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Magnetic Resonance Index Lesions: Two- to Four-Core versus Saturated Transperineal Targeted Biopsy. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:2306. [PMID: 39001369 PMCID: PMC11240532 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16132306] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/06/2024] [Revised: 06/21/2024] [Accepted: 06/22/2024] [Indexed: 07/16/2024] Open
Abstract
Since the optimal scheme for targeted biopsies of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) suspicious lesions remains unclear, we compare the efficacy of two schemes for these index lesions. A prospective trial was conducted in 1161 men with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System v 2.1 3-5 undergoing targeted and 12-core systematic biopsy in four centers between 2021 and 2023. Two- to four-core MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsies via the transperineal route were conducted in 900 men in three centers, while a mapping per 0.5 mm core method (saturated scheme) was employed in 261 men biopsied in another center. A propensity-matched 261 paired cases were selected for avoiding confounders other than the targeted biopsy scheme. CsPCa (grade group ≥ 2) was identified in 125 index lesions (41.1%) when the two- to four-core scheme was employed, while in 187 (71.9%) when the saturated biopsy (p < 0.001) was used. Insignificant PCa (iPCa) was detected in 18 and 11.1%, respectively (p = 0.019). Rates of csPCa and iPCa remained similar in systematic biopsies. CsPCa detected only in systematic biopsies were 5 and 1.5%, respectively (p = 0.035) in each group. The saturated scheme for targeted biopsies detected more csPCa and less iPCa than did the two- to four-core scheme in the index lesions. The rate of csPCa detected only in the systematic biopsies decreased when the saturated scheme was employed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Juan Morote
- Department of Urology, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, 08035 Barcelona, Spain;
- Department of Surgery, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain;
- Research Group in Urology, Vall d’Hebron Research Institute, 08035 Barcelona, Spain;
| | - Nahuel Paesano
- Department of Surgery, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain;
- Clinica Creu Blanca, 08018 Barcelona, Spain
| | - Natàlia Picola
- Department of Urology, Bellvitge University Hospital, Hospitalet de Llobregat, 08907 Barcelona, Spain;
| | - Berta Miró
- Statistics Unit, Vall d’Hebron Research Institute, 08035 Barcelona, Spain;
| | - José M. Abascal
- Department of Urology, Parc de Salut Mar, 08003 Barcelona, Spain;
- Department of Health Sciences, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 08003 Barcelona, Spain
| | - Pol Servian
- Department of Urology, Hospital Germans Trias I Pujol, 08916 Badalona, Spain;
| | - Enrique Trilla
- Department of Urology, Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, 08035 Barcelona, Spain;
- Department of Surgery, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain;
- Research Group in Urology, Vall d’Hebron Research Institute, 08035 Barcelona, Spain;
| | - Olga Méndez
- Research Group in Urology, Vall d’Hebron Research Institute, 08035 Barcelona, Spain;
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
van den Kroonenberg DL, Stoter JD, Jager A, Veerman H, Hagens MJ, Schoots IG, Postema AW, Hoekstra RJ, Oprea-Lager DE, Nieuwenhuijzen JA, van Leeuwen PJ, Vis AN. The Impact of Omitting Contralateral Systematic Biopsy on the Surgical Planning of Patients with a Unilateral Suspicious Lesion on Magnetic Resonance Imaging Undergoing Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer. EUR UROL SUPPL 2024; 63:13-18. [PMID: 38558763 PMCID: PMC10981034 DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2024.03.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/10/2024] [Indexed: 04/04/2024] Open
Abstract
Background and objective A combined approach of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy (TBx) and bilateral systematic biopsy (SBx) is advised in patients who have an increased risk of prostate cancer (PCa). The diagnostic gain of SBx in detecting PCa for treatment planning of patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is unknown. This study aims to determine the impact of omitting contralateral SBx on the surgical planning of patients undergoing RARP in terms of nerve-sparing surgery (NSS) and extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND). Methods Case files from 80 men with biopsy-proven PCa were studied. All men had a unilateral suspicious lesion on MRI, and underwent TBx and bilateral SBx. Case files were presented to five urologists for the surgical planning of RARP. Each case file was presented randomly using two different sets of information: (1) results of TBx + bilateral SBx, and (2) results of TBx + ipsilateral SBx. The urologists assessed whether they would perform NSS and/or ePLND. Key findings and limitations A change in the surgical plan concerning NSS on the contralateral side was observed in 9.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.4-12.2) of cases. Additionally, the indication for ePLND changed in 5.3% (95% CI 3.3-7.9) of cases. Interobserver agreement based on Fleiss' kappa changed from 0.44 to 0.15 for the indication of NSS and from 0.84 to 0.83 for the indication of ePLND. Conclusions and clinical implications In our series, the diagnostic information obtained from contralateral SBx has limited impact on the surgical planning of patients with a unilateral suspicious lesion on MRI scheduled to undergo RARP. Patient summary In patients with one-sided prostate cancer on magnetic resonance imaging, omitting biopsies on the other side rarely changed the surgical plan with respect to nerve-sparing surgery and the indication to perform extended lymph node dissection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Auke Jager
- Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Prostate Cancer Network Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hans Veerman
- Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Prostate Cancer Network Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marinus J. Hagens
- Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Prostate Cancer Network Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ivo G. Schoots
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Arnoud W. Postema
- Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Prostate Cancer Network Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Robert J. Hoekstra
- Department of Urology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
- Prosper Prostate Clinic, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | | | - Jakko A. Nieuwenhuijzen
- Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Prostate Cancer Network Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Pim J. van Leeuwen
- Prostate Cancer Network Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - André N. Vis
- Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Prostate Cancer Network Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Bourgeno HA, Jabbour T, Baudewyns A, Lefebvre Y, Ferriero M, Simone G, Fourcade A, Fournier G, Oderda M, Gontero P, Bernal-Gomez A, Mastrorosa A, Roche JB, Abou Zahr R, Ploussard G, Fiard G, Halinski A, Rysankova K, Dariane C, Delavar G, Anract J, Barry Delongchamps N, Bui AP, Taha F, Windisch O, Benamran D, Assenmacher G, Vlahopoulos L, Guenzel K, Roumeguère T, Peltier A, Diamand R. The Added Value of Side-specific Systematic Biopsy in Patients Diagnosed by Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsy. Eur Urol Oncol 2024:S2588-9311(24)00031-2. [PMID: 38272745 DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2024.01.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2023] [Revised: 12/12/2023] [Accepted: 01/10/2024] [Indexed: 01/27/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Systematic biopsy (SB) combined with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy is still recommended considering the risk of missing clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). OBJECTIVE To evaluate the added value in csPCa detection on side-specific SB relative to MRI lesion and to externally validate the Noujeim risk stratification model that predicts the risk of csPCa on distant SB cores relative to the index MRI lesion. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Overall, 4841 consecutive patients diagnosed by MRI-targeted biopsy and SB for Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score ≥3 lesions were identified from a prospectively maintained database between January 2016 and April 2023 at 15 European referral centers. A total of 2387 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS McNemar's test was used to compare the csPCa detection rate between several biopsy strategies including MRI-targeted biopsy, side-specific SB, and a combination of both. Model performance was evaluated in terms of discrimination using area under the receiver operation characteristic curve (AUC), calibration plots, and decision curve analysis. Clinically significant prostate cancer was defined as International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Overall, the csPCa detection rate was 49%. Considering MRI-targeted biopsy as reference, the added values in terms of csPCa detection were 5.8% (relative increase of 13%), 4.2% (relative increase of 9.8%), and 2.8% (relative increase of 6.1%) for SB, ipsilateral SB, and contralateral SB, respectively. Only 35 patients (1.5%) exclusively had csPCa on contralateral SB (p < 0.001). Considering patients with csPCa on MRI-targeted biopsy and ipsilateral SB, the upgrading rate was 2% (20/961) using contralateral SB (p < 0.001). The Noujeim model exhibited modest performance (AUC of 0.63) when tested using our validation set. CONCLUSIONS The added value of contralateral SB was negligible in terms of cancer detection and upgrading rates. The Noujeim model could be included in the decision-making process regarding the appropriate prostate biopsy strategy. PATIENT SUMMARY In the present study, we collected a set of patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted and systematic biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer. We found that biopsies taken at the opposite side of the MRI suspicious lesion have a negligible impact on cancer detection. We also validate a risk stratification model that predicts the risk of cancer on biopsies beyond 10 mm from the initial lesion, which could be used in daily practice to improve the personalization of the prostate biopsy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Henri-Alexandre Bourgeno
- Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Teddy Jabbour
- Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Arthur Baudewyns
- Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Yolène Lefebvre
- Department of Radiology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | | | - Giuseppe Simone
- Department of Urology, IRCCS "Regina Elena" National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy
| | - Alexandre Fourcade
- Department of Urology, Hôpital Cavale Blanche, CHRU Brest, Brest, France
| | - Georges Fournier
- Department of Urology, Hôpital Cavale Blanche, CHRU Brest, Brest, France
| | - Marco Oderda
- Department of Urology, Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Paolo Gontero
- Department of Urology, Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | | | | | | | - Rawad Abou Zahr
- Department of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hospital, Quint Fonsegrives, France
| | | | - Gaelle Fiard
- Department of Urology, Grenoble Alpes University Hospital, Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, TIMC, Grenoble, France
| | - Adam Halinski
- Department of Urology, Private Medical Center "Klinika Wisniowa", Zielona Góra, Poland
| | - Katerina Rysankova
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic
| | - Charles Dariane
- Department of Urology, Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou, Université de Paris, Paris, France
| | - Gina Delavar
- Departement of Urology, Hôpital Cochin, Paris, France
| | - Julien Anract
- Departement of Urology, Hôpital Cochin, Paris, France
| | | | | | - Fayek Taha
- Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Reims, Reims, France
| | - Olivier Windisch
- Department of Urology, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Daniel Benamran
- Department of Urology, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland
| | | | | | - Karsten Guenzel
- Department of Urology, Vivantes Klinikum am Urban, Berlin, Deutschland
| | - Thierry Roumeguère
- Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Alexandre Peltier
- Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Romain Diamand
- Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Deniffel D, Perlis N, Ghai S, Girgis S, Healy GM, Fleshner N, Hamilton R, Kulkarni G, Toi A, van der Kwast T, Zlotta A, Finelli A, Haider MA. Prostate biopsy in the era of MRI-targeting: towards a judicious use of additional systematic biopsy. Eur Radiol 2022; 32:7544-7554. [PMID: 35507051 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-08822-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/16/2022] [Revised: 03/20/2022] [Accepted: 04/18/2022] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dominik Deniffel
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.,Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, 600 University Avenue, M5G 1X5, Toronto, ON, Canada.,Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Sinai Health System and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Nathan Perlis
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Sangeet Ghai
- Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Sinai Health System and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | | | - Gerard M Healy
- Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, 600 University Avenue, M5G 1X5, Toronto, ON, Canada.,Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Sinai Health System and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Neil Fleshner
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Robert Hamilton
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Girish Kulkarni
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Ants Toi
- Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Sinai Health System and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Theodorus van der Kwast
- Department of Pathology, Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Alexandre Zlotta
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.,Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Antonio Finelli
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Masoom A Haider
- Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, 600 University Avenue, M5G 1X5, Toronto, ON, Canada. .,Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, Sinai Health System and University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|