Are concurrent systematic cores needed at the time of targeted biopsy in patients with prior negative prostate biopsies?

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.

Comparison of transperineal and transrectal targeted prostate biopsy using Mahalanobis distance matching within propensity score caliper method: A multicenter study of Turkish Urooncology Association

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC)-detecting results of transperineal and transrectal targeted biopsy (TPTB and TRTB, respectively) by performing matching analysis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study has used the PC and prostate biopsy database from the Turkish Urooncology Association. A total of 1143 patients with Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) with ≥3 lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and who had received a software-guided transperineal/transrectal MRI/transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy with concomitant standard systematic 12-core biopsy were included in this study. csPC detection rates of the TP and TR approaches were compared following Mahalanobis distance matching within propensity score caliper method. The following four variables were selected as covariates for the matching procedure: age, digital rectal examination findings, PSA density, and the index lesion PI-RADS score.

RESULTS

The matched sample included 508 TR and 276 TP patients. In both the TP and the TR groups, targeted biopsy was superior to systematic biopsy in detecting csPC (27.5% vs. 24.6%, p < 0.001 and 19.5% vs. 16.3%, p < 0.0001, respectively). Both TPTB and TP systematic biopsy was found to be superior to TRTB and TR systematic biopsy in terms of csPC detection (27.5% vs. 19.5%, p = 0.012 and 24.6% vs. 16.3%, p = 0.006). In patients with an anterior index lesion, an apical index lesion, and a larger prostate, the superiority of TPTB to TRTB was found to be more prominent in terms of csPC detection (37.8% vs. 18.3%, p = 0.044; 34.6% vs. 14.7%, p = 0.002; and 25% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.033, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Targeted biopsy was found to be superior to systematic biopsy in detecting csPC in both the TP and the TR approaches. The TP approach is preferred because of its clear superiority in detecting csPC in targeted biopsy, especially in patients with anterior and apical lesions and with larger prostates.

Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection with various prostate sampling schemes based on different csPCa definitions

Background

Combining targeted biopsy (TB) with systematic biopsy (SB) is currently recommended as the first-line biopsy method by the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines in patients diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) with an abnormal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The combined SB and TB indeed detected an additional number of patients with clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa); however, it did so at the expense of a concomitant increase in biopsy cores. Our study aimed to evaluate if ipsilateral SB (ipsi-SB) + TB or contralateral SB (contra-SB) + TB could achieve almost equal csPCa detection rates as SB + TB using fewer cores based on a different csPCa definition.

Methods

Patients with at least one positive prostate lesion were prospectively diagnosed by MRI. The combination of TB and SB was conducted in all patients. We compared the csPCa detection rates of the following four hypothetical biopsy sampling schemes with those of SB + TB: SB, TB, ipsi-SB + TB, and contra-SB + TB.

Results

The study enrolled 279 men. The median core of SB, TB, ipsi-SB + TB, and contra-SB + TB was 10, 2, 7 and 7, respectively (P < 0.001). ipsi-SB + TB detected significantly more patients with csPCa than contra-SB + TB based on the EAU guidelines (P = 0.042). They were almost equal on the basis of the Epstein criteria (P = 1.000). Compared with SB + TB, each remaining method detected significantly fewer patients with csPCa regardless of the definition (P < 0.001) except ipsi-SB + TB on the grounds of D1 (P = 0.066). Ten additional subjects were identified with a higher Gleason score (GS) on contra-SB + TB, and only one was considered as significantly upgraded (GS = 6 on ipsi-SB + TB to a GS of 8 on contra-SB + TB).

Conclusions

Ipsi-SB + TB could acquire an almost equivalent csPCa detection value to SB + TB using significantly fewer cores when csPCa was defined according to the EAU guidelines. Given that there was only one significantly upgrading patient on contra-SB, our results suggested that contra-SB could be avoided.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12894-021-00949-7.

Transperineal prostate biopsy: a review of technique

As the second most diagnosed cancer worldwide, prostate cancer is confirmed via tissue biopsy. Given the large number of prostate biopsies performed each year, the technique should be as accurate and safe as possible for the patient’s well-being. Transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-biopsy) is most offered worldwide. Transperineal biopsy (TPP-biopsy), on the other hand, has been gaining popularity due to its superior sensitivity and lower rate of sepsis. This article offers a review of the brachytherapy grid technique used to perform a TPP-biopsy, as well as a discussion of possible variations in the procedure. TPP-biopsy is typically performed under general anaesthesia with patient in lithotomy. Through the perineum, cores of tissue are taken systematically, with or without targeting, under US guidance. Different fusion techniques (cognition, MRI-US fusion software, MRI in-bore) can be used to target pre-identified lesions on MRI. The sampling can be done either by free hand or using a brachytherapy grid. Robotic assisted prostate biopsy is also available on the market as an alternative. In recent years, there has been accumulating evidence showing that it is safe and feasible to perform TPPB under local anaesthesia. This may improve the uptake of TPPB as the preferred biopsy technique for prostate cancer.

Negative Biopsy Histology in Men With PI-RADS Score 5 in Daily Clinical Practice: Incidence of Granulomatous Prostatitis

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biopsy histology of men who underwent transperineal multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy for Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score 5 lesions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 2016 to June 2019, 105 men with PI-RADS score 5 underwent mpMRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy combined with systematic prostate biopsy. All the patients underwent a 3.0 Tesla pelvic mpMRI for the first time before prostate biopsy. In detail, the detection rate for clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) and the follow-up of the patients without proven diagnosis of PCa has been reported.

RESULTS

In 91 (86.7%) of 105 patients, a stage T1c PCa was diagnosed, and 89 (84.5%) of 105 of them were classified as clinically significant PCa. Among the 16 (15.5%) of 105 patients with absence of cancer, 5 (31.5%) of 16 had an aspecific granulomatous prostatitis, 1 (6.2%) of 16 had a specific granulomatous prostatitis secondary to prostatic Mycobacterium Tubercolosis, and 10 (62.3%) of 16 had a diagnosis of normal parenchyma. The 6 patients with granulomatous prostatitis underwent specific antibiotic therapy followed by laboratory (ie, semen and urine cultures) and clinical evaluation. Six months from prostate biopsy, none of the 16 patients underwent repeat prostate biopsy because prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (15/16 cases) plus PSA density significantly decreased; in addition, in all the cases the initial PI-RADS score 5 was downgraded at mpMRI revaluation to PI-RADS score ≤ 3.

CONCLUSION

The reduction of PSA plus PSA density values and the downgrading of PI-RADS score to ≤ 3 allow avoiding a repeated prostate biopsy in men with initial mpMRI PI-RADS score 5 lesion and negative biopsy histology.

Controversies in MR targeted biopsy: alone or combined, cognitive versus software-based fusion, transrectal versus transperineal approach?

PURPOSE

To review the evidence addressing current controversies around prostate biopsy. Specific questions explored were (1) mpMRI targeted (TgBx) alone versus combined with systematic (SBx) biopsy; (2) cognitive versus software-based targeted biopsy; (3) transrectal or transperineal route (TP).

METHODS

We performed a literature search of peer-reviewed English language articles using PubMed and the words "prostate" AND "biopsy". Web search was implemented by manual search.

RESULTS

Prostate mpMRI is revolutionizing prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis, and TgBx improves the detection of clinically significant (cs) PCa compared to SBx alone. The utility of combining SBx-TgBx is variable, but in non-expert centres the two should be combined to overcome learning curve-limitations. Whether SBx should be maintained in expert centres depends on what rate of missed cancer the urological community and patients are prone to accept; this has implications for insignificant cancer diagnosis as well. TgBx may be more precise using a software-based-approach despite cognitive TgBx proved non-inferior in some studies, and may be used for large accessible lesions. TP-biopsies are feasible in an in-office setting. Avoidance of the rectum and accessibility of virtually all prostate areas are attractive features. However, this has to be balanced with local setting and resources implications. Ongoing trials will shed light on unsolved issues.

CONCLUSION

The prostate biopsy strategy should be tailored to local expertise, needs and resources availability. Targeted biopsy enhance the ratio between cs and insignificant cancer diagnosis, although some csPCa might be missed. Software-based TgBx are likely to be more precise, especially for new users, although the additional cost might be not justified in all cases. TPBx have ideal attributes for performing TgBx and avoiding infection, although this has resources implications.

Comparisons between magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy and standard biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: A prospective cohort study

Prostate-specific antigen is not useful for detection of prostate cancer in Chinese men. The major problems in prostate cancer patients are overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The objective of the study was to test the hypothesis that targeted biopsy is an accurate diagnostic tool for prostate cancer detection than standard biopsy in Chinese men.Total, 998 patients whom multiparticulate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging had revealed at least 1 lesion in the prostate were included in a cohort. Patients were subjected to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasound (US) fusion-guided biopsy followed US-guided biopsy. Benefits of a diagnostic test were evaluated by decision curve analysis. Patients who were diagnosed as having prostate cancer by either of biopsies were subjected to radical prostatectomies followed by whole-mounted pathology (n = 578). Spearman rank correlation was performed between the biopsy results and the subtype of prostate cancer at 99% of confidence level.With respect to whole-mounted pathology, for US-guided biopsy, MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy, and combined data of both biopsies, sensitivities were 0.973, 0.983, and 0.973 and accuracies were 0.837, 0.91, and 0.917, respectively. MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy (P = .165) and combined data of both biopsies (P = .182) had the same specificity to whole-mount pathology. However, a US-guided biopsy had not the same specificity to whole-mount pathology (P = .0003). Decision-making zones for radical prostatectomy of different biopsies were in the order of combined data of both biopsies >MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy >US-guided biopsy.Only the targeted biopsy is recommended for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.