Improved Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer With Software-assisted Systematic Biopsy Using MR/US Fusion in Patients With Negative Prostate MRI

A Matched-pair Analysis Comparing Systematic Prostate Biopsy by Conventional Transrectal Ultrasound-guidance Versus Software-based Predefined 3D-Guidance

OBJECTIVE

To compare software-based three-dimensional-guided systematic prostate biopsy (3D-GSB) with conventional transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy (TGSB) regarding prostate cancer (PCa) detection rates (CDR).

METHODS

In total, 956 patients (200 TGSB patients and 756 3D-GSB patients) without prior positive biopsies and with a prostate-specific antigen value ≤20 ng/ml were eligible for analysis. TGSB and 3D-GSB cases were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity score matching with age, prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, previous biopsy status, and suspicious palpatory finding as confounders. 3D-GSB was conducted with the semi-robotic prostate fusion-biopsy system Artemis. For each patient in both groups, SB was conducted in a similar pattern with 12 cores. All cores in 3D-GSB were automatically planned and mapped on a 3D-model as well as on the real-time transrectal ultrasound imaging. Primary end points were the clinically significant (cs) and overall CDR. Secondary end point was the cancer-positive core rate.

RESULTS

After matching, the csCDR was not significantly different between the 3D-GSB and the TGSB groups (33.3% vs 28.8%, P = .385). Overall CDR was significantly higher for 3D-GSB compared to TGSB (55.6% vs 39.9%, P = .002). 3D-GSB detected significantly more non-significant PCa than TGSB (22.2% vs 11.1%, P = .004). In patients with PCa, the number of cancer-positive SB cores was significantly higher by TGSB (42% vs 25%, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

3D-GSB was associated with a higher CDR than TGSB. However, no significant difference was shown in detection of csPCa between both techniques. Therefore, currently, 3D-GSB does not appear to add value to conventional TGSB.

Multi-Parameter Magnetic Resonance Imaging Fusion Technology Assists in Bone Diagnosis and Rehabilitation of Prostate Cancer

Multi-parameter magnetic resonance imaging has been widely used in the diagnosis and evaluation of prostate cancer, and has important guiding significance for clinical diagnosis of prostate cancer and their treatment. This article studies the value of transrectal multiparametric ultrasound (mpUSS) in the diagnosis of clinically meaningful prostate cancer. 102 patients with high risk factors for prostate cancer were examined by mpUSS and mpMRI. The transrectal biopsy (SB) results of the prostate system were regarded as the excellent standard, and the diagnostic value of mpUSS, mpMRl and mpUSS combined with mpMRl examination for clinically meaningful prostate cancer was analyzed. The results showed that 58 of the 102 patients with SB were diagnosed with prostate cancer. Among them, 43 cases were detected by mpUSS, 50 cases were detected by mpMRl, 42 cases were detected by mpUSS combined with mpMRI (series), and 56 cases were detected by mpUSS combined with mpMRl (parallel). Grouped by Gleason score, the detection rate of mpUSS for clinically significant prostate cancer was 83.74%, and the detection rate of mpMRl was 93.5%. The comparison between the two was not statistically significant (P > 0.05), but when the two inspection methods were combined. The detection rate was 97.8%, which was significantly higher than the two inspection methods alone. Therefore, we conclude that mpUSS can be used as an imaging test for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. In addition, mpUSS has a high application value in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. The detection rate of mpUSS combined with mpMRl examination for clinically meaningful prostate cancer is significantly higher than that of mpMRl examination alone, which can be used as a diagnostic technique for early diagnosis of meaningful prostate cancer and can be used as a guide clinicians’ early diagnosis and treatment of meaningful prostate cancer.

Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Era: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is increasingly used in prostate cancer diagnosis. The reported negative predictive value (NPV) of mpMRI is used by some clinicians to aid in decision making about whether or not to proceed to biopsy.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to perform a contemporary systematic review that reflects the latest literature on optimal mpMRI techniques and scoring systems to update the NPV of mpMRI for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We conducted a systematic literature search and included studies from 2016 to September 4, 2019, which assessed the NPV of mpMRI for csPCa, using biopsy or clinical follow-up as the reference standard. To ensure that studies included in this analysis reflect contemporary practice, we only included studies in which mpMRI findings were interpreted according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) or similar Likert grading system. We define negative mpMRI as either (1) PIRADS/Likert 1-2 or (2) PIRADS/Likert 1-3; csPCa was defined as either (1) Gleason grade group ≥2 or (2) Gleason grade group ≥3. We calculated NPV separately for each combination of negative mpMRI and csPCa.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 42 studies with 7321 patients met our inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. Using definition (1) for negative mpMRI and csPCa, the pooled NPV for biopsy-naïve men was 90.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 88.1-93.1%). When defining csPCa using definition (2), the NPV for csPCa was 97.1% (95% CI 94.9-98.7%). Calculation of the pooled NPV using definition (2) for negative mpMRI and definition (1) for csPCa yielded the following: 86.8% (95% CI 80.1-92.4%). Using definition (2) for both negative mpMRI and csPCa, the pooled NPV from two studies was 96.1% (95% CI 93.4-98.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Multiparametric MRI of the prostate is generally an accurate test for ruling out csPCa. However, we observed heterogeneity in the NPV estimates, and local institutional data should form the basis of decision making if available.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The negative predictive values should assist in decision making for clinicians considering not proceeding to biopsy in men with elevated age-specific prostate-specific antigen and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging reported as negative (or equivocal) on Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System/Likert scoring. Some 7-10% of men, depending on the setting, will miss a diagnosis of clinically significant cancer if they do not proceed to biopsy. Given the institutional variation in results, it is of upmost importance to base decision making on local data if available.

Accuracy of MRI-guided Versus Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Patients Under Active Surveillance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

This meta-analysis focuses on the accuracy of upgrading to clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy (MRI-TB) versus systematic biopsy (SB). We searched the Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Scopus, and Literatura Latino Americana em Ciências da Saúde databases through January 2020 for comparative, retrospective/prospective, paired-cohort, and randomized clinical trials with paired comparisons. The population consisted of patients with low-risk PCa in active surveillance with at least 1 index lesion on imaging. We evaluated the quality of evidence by using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 score. Group comparisons considered the differences between the area under the curve summary receiver operating characteristic curve in a 2-tailed method. We also compared the positive predictive value of the best single method (MRI-TB or SB) and the referral study test (combined biopsy, a combination of MRI-TB and SB). The meta-analysis included 6 studies enrolling 741 patients. The pooled sensitivity for the 2 groups was 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.83; I² = 75%) and 0.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.74; I² = 55.4%), respectively. The area under the curve for the MRI-TB and SB groups were 0.99 and 0.92 (P < .001), respectively. The positive predictive value for the MRI-TB and combined biopsy groups were similar. The accumulated evidence suggests better results for MRI-TB compared with SB. Therefore, use of MRI-TB alone may be preferable in patients in active surveillance harboring low-risk PCa.