Additional value of magnetic resonance-targeted biopsies to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)-Targeted Biopsy in Patients with Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) Levels <20 ng/mL: A Single-Center Study in Northeastern China

Background

We investigated the feasibility of applying magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy (TB) in patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels <20 ng/mL.

Material/Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 218 patients with PSA levels <20 ng/mL and suspicious lesions according to the Prostate Imaging Recording and Data System version 2.0 (PI-RADS v2). All 218 men underwent transperineal MRI-TB, followed by template-guided 12-core systematic biopsy (SB). Of the 218 patients undergoing TB, 100 received MRI-ultrasound-assisted software fusion biopsy (FB) and 118 received cognitive biopsy (CB). Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined as a Gleason score ≥3+4.

Results

The overall TB positive rate was similar to that of SB (P=0.156), but with a higher diagnostic rate for csPCa (P=0.034). SB misdiagnosed csPCa in 11.47% of cases; TB misdiagnosed csPCa in 5.50% of cases. SB+TB detected more tumors with a Gleason score of 7 than did SB alone (43 vs 22). Detection rates of csPCa were similar for CB and FB (P=0.217). In total, 47 men had 2 MRI-determined suspicious areas. Of 265 suspicious areas, 143 (53.96%) had a PI-RADS v2 score of 3; 92 (34.71%) had a score of 4; and 30 (11.32%) had a score of 5. The positive detection rates for csPCa in patients with PI-RADS v2 scores of 3, 4, and 5, were 11.19%, 48.91%, and 80.00%, respectively.

Conclusions

TB increased the positive biopsy detection rate but missed some cases of csPCa. TB combined with SB may be the most suitable biopsy for patients with PSA <20 ng/mL.

mpMRI-targeted biopsy versus systematic biopsy for clinically significant prostate cancer diagnosis: a systematic review and metaanalysis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We aimed to compare the accuracy of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) diagnosis by magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy (MRI-TB) versus systematic biopsy (SB) in men suspected of having prostate cancer (PCa).

RECENT FINDINGS

In biopsy-naïve patients, MRI-TB was more accurate to identify csPCa than SB. However, when comparing specifically MRI-TB versus transperineal (SB), we did not find any difference. Furthermore, in a repeat biopsy scenario, MRI-TB found more csPCa than SB as well. Finally, postanalysis comparing combined biopsy (SB plus MRI-TB) suggests that the later alone may play a role in both scenarios for identifying csPCa.

SUMMARY

MRI-TB found more csPCa than SB in patients with suspected PCa in both scenarios, naïve and repeat biopsies, but more studies comparing those methods are warranted before any recommendation on this topic.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy Versus Systematic Biopsy in the Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted prostate biopsy (MRI-TB) may be an alternative to systematic biopsy for diagnosing prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

The primary aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to compare the detection rates of clinically significant and clinically insignificant cancer by MRI-TB with those by systematic biopsy in men undergoing prostate biopsy to identify prostate cancer.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases. We included prospective and retrospective paired studies where the index test was MRI-TB and the comparator test was systematic biopsy. We also included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) if one arm included MRI-TB and another arm included systematic biopsy. The risk of bias was assessed using a modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 checklist. In addition, the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool was used for RCTs.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We included 68 studies with a paired design and eight RCTs, comprising a total of 14709 men who either received both MRI-TB and systematic biopsy, or were randomised to receive one of the tests. MRI-TB detected more men with clinically significant cancer than systematic biopsy (detection ratio [DR] 1.16 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.09-1.24], p<0.0001) and fewer men with clinically insignificant cancer than systematic biopsy (DR 0.66 [95% CI 0.57-0.76], p<0.0001). The proportion of cores positive for cancer was greater for MRI-TB than for systematic biopsy (relative risk 3.17 [95% CI 2.82-3.56], p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

MRI-TB is an attractive alternative diagnostic strategy to systematic biopsy.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We evaluated the published literature, comparing two methods of diagnosing prostate cancer. We found that biopsies targeted to suspicious areas on magnetic resonance imaging were better at detecting prostate cancer that needs to be treated and avoiding the diagnosis of disease that does not need treatment than the traditional systematic biopsy.