Prostate cancer diagnostic pathway: Is a one-stop cognitive MRI targeted biopsy service a realistic goal in everyday practice? A pilot cohort in a tertiary referral centre in the UK

A systematic review on the outcomes of local anaesthetic transperineal prostate biopsy

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of the literature to assess the diagnostic ability, complication rate, patient tolerability, and cost of local anaesthetic (LA) transperineal prostate biopsy.

METHODS

Two reviewers searched Medline, the Cochrane Library, and Embase for publications on LA transperineal prostate biopsy up to March 2021. Outcomes of interest included cancer detection rates, complication rates, pain assessments and cost.

RESULTS

A total of 35 publications with 113 944 men were included in this review. The cancer detection rate for LA transperineal prostate biopsy in patients undergoing primary biopsy was 52% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-0.60; I² = 97) and the clinically significant cancer detection rate (Gleason≥3 + 4) was 37% (95% CI 0.24-0.52; I² = 99%). The rate of infection-related complications in the included studies was 0.15% (95% CI 0.0000-0.0043; I² = 86). The LA transperineal procedures had a low rate of procedural abandonment (26/6954, 0.37%), with the greatest pain scores measured during LA administration. No formal cost analyses on LA transperineal prostate biopsies were identified in the literature. The overall risk of bias in the included studies was high, with considerable study heterogeneity and publication bias.

CONCLUSION

Transperineal prostate biopsy performed under LA is a viable option for centres interested in avoiding the risk of infection associated with transrectal biopsy, and the logistical burden of general anaesthesia. Further investigation into LA transperineal prostate biopsy with comparative studies is warranted for its consideration as the standard in prostate biopsy technique.

Quality checkpoints in the MRI-directed prostate cancer diagnostic pathway

Multiparametric MRI of the prostate is now recommended as the initial diagnostic test for men presenting with suspected prostate cancer, with a negative MRI enabling safe avoidance of biopsy and a positive result enabling MRI-directed sampling of lesions. The diagnostic pathway consists of several steps, from initial patient presentation and preparation to performing and interpreting MRI, communicating the imaging findings, outlining the prostate and intra-prostatic target lesions, performing the biopsy and assessing the cores. Each component of this pathway requires experienced clinicians, optimized equipment, good inter-disciplinary communication between specialists, and standardized workflows in order to achieve the expected outcomes. Assessment of quality and mitigation measures are essential for the success of the MRI-directed prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. Quality assurance processes including Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System, template biopsy, and pathology guidelines help to minimize variation and ensure optimization of the diagnostic pathway. Quality control systems including the Prostate Imaging Quality scoring system, patient-level outcomes (such as Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System MRI score assignment and cancer detection rates), multidisciplinary meeting review and audits might also be used to provide consistency of outcomes and ensure that all the benefits of the MRI-directed pathway are achieved.

One-Day Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Digital Pathology by Fluorescence Confocal Microscopy

In this prospective observational study, we tested the feasibility and efficacy of a novel one-day PCa diagnosis path based on biparametric magnetic resonance (bpMRI) and digital pathology by fluorescence confocal microscopy (FCM). Patients aged 55–70 years scheduled for PBx due to increased PSA levels (3–10 ng/mL) and/or abnormal digitorectal examination were enrolled. All patients underwent bpMRI and PBx with immediate FCM evaluation of biopsy cores. Patients were asked to fill out a dedicated Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire. Patients’ satisfaction rates and concordance between digital pathology and standard HE evaluation were the outcomes of interest. Twelve patients completed our one-day PCa diagnosis path. BpMRI showed suspicious lesions in 7 patients. Digital pathology by FCM identified PCa in 5 (41.7%) of the 12 patients. Standard pathology confirmed the diagnosis made through digital pathology in all the cases. At a per patient level, high concordance between the methods was achieved in Gleason Grading (4 out of 5 patients). The level of agreement in the number of positive cores was lower but did not affect the choice of treatment in any of the 5 PCa cases. At a per core level, the agreement was very high for the diagnosis of anyPCa (96.2%) and csPCa (97.3%), with a k coefficient of 0.90 and 0.92, respectively (near perfect agreement). In conclusion, one-day PCa diagnosis by FCM represents a feasible, reliable, and fast diagnostic method that provides significant advantages in optimizing time and resources, leading to patients having a higher quality standard of care perception.

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.

Factors influencing the delivery of cancer pathways: a summary of the literature

PURPOSE

The study aims to summarise the literature on cancer care pathways at the diagnostic and treatment phases. The objectives are to find factors influencing the delivery of cancer care pathways; to highlight any interrelating factors; to find gaps in the literature concerning areas of research; to summarise the strategies and recommendations implemented in the studies.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

The study used a qualitative approach and developed a causal loop diagram to summarise the current literature on cancer care pathways, from screening and diagnosis to treatment. A total of 46 papers was finally included in the analysis, which highlights the recurring themes in the literature.

FINDINGS

The study highlights the myriad areas of research applied to cancer care pathways. Factors influencing the delivery of cancer care pathways were classified into different albeit interrelated themes. These include access barriers to care, hospital emergency admissions, fast track diagnostics, delay in diagnosis, waiting time to treatment and strategies to increase system efficiency.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

As far as the authors know, this is the first study to present a visual representation of the complex relationship between factors influencing the delivery of cancer care pathways.

PI-RADS: what is new and how to use it

The prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) has revolutionized the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the management of prostate cancer (PCa). The most recent version 2.1, PI-RADS v2.1, provides specific refinements in the performance, relaxing some recommendations which were not found to be helpful, while reinforcing and clarifying others. The interpretation of T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) in the transition zone (TZ), and the overall assessment of TZ nodules, now allows for a clearer distinction between those which are clearly benign and those which might warrant tissue sampling. Additional changes also resolve discrepancies in T2WI and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) of the peripheral zone (PZ). PI-RADS v2.1 is a simpler, more straightforward, and more reproducible method to better communicate between physicians regarding findings on prostate MRI.

The decision of targeted, systematic or combined biopsy in a biopsy naïve patient for the diagnosis of prostate cancer, can be made on the basis of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging

Introduction:

The current trend to implement multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-guided targeted biopsy (TB) as primary biopsy for the diagnosis of suspected prostate cancer and to avoid systematic biopsy (SB) is growing. However, concern remains regarding missing clinically significant (Cs) cancer on the normal mpMRI areas of the prostate. Therefore, we compared the normal and abnormal areas from mpMRI at the same prostate biopsy, using simultaneous SB and TB technique.

Methods:

A prospective, comparative effectiveness study included 134 patients initially referred for primary biopsy (from October 2017 to June 2018); 100 men were selected, mean age 68 years, with a median level of prostate specific antigen of 7.6, with average prostate volume of 52 cm3 (T3 disease and prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score < 3 were excluded). All underwent six cores TB (median), from an average of two lesions on mpMRI and also eight cores SB (median) from normal mpMRI areas of the prostate after informed consent.

Results:

The combined (SB + TB) biopsy cancer detection rate was 67%, 51% having Cs disease. For Cs cancer, 35 patients were detected by both techniques. TB missed four Cs cancer (95% confidence interval (CI), p < 0.0001). Fewer men in the TB group than in the SB group were found to have clinically insignificant (Ci) cancer (95% CI, p < 0.0001). No Cs cancer diagnosis was missed on TB from PI-RADS 5 lesion. Overall, 4% Cs cancers were missed on TB and avoided over diagnosis of 9% Ci cancer.

Conclusions:

Cognitive TB didn’t miss any Cs cancer from PI-RADS 5 lesion found on mpMRI. Only doing Cognitive TB on PI-RADS 5 lesion would save time, reduce workload and will be cost effective both for Urology and Pathology. PI-RADS 3 and 4 lesions on mpMRI will benefit from adding systematic samples.

Level of evidence:

4 Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM).

One-Stop MRI and MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy: an expedited pathway for prostate cancer diagnosis

PURPOSE

To assess the feasibility, safety, and outcomes of an expedited One-Stop prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostic pathway.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We identified 370 consecutive patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and transrectal ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy (MRI/TRUS-PBx) from our institutional review board-approved database. Patients were divided according to diagnostic pathway: One-Stop (n = 74), with mpMRI and same-day PBx, or Standard (n = 296), with mpMRI followed by a second visit for PBx. mpMRIs were performed and interpreted according to Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS v2). Grade group ≥ 2 PCa defined clinically significant PCa (csPCa). Statistical significance was considered when p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Age (66 vs 66 years, p = 0.59) and PSA density (0.1 vs 0.1 ng/mL², p = 0.26) were not different between One-Stop vs Standard pathway, respectively. One-Stop patients lived further away from the hospital than Standard patients (163 vs 31 km; p < 0.01), and experienced shorter time from mpMRI to PBx (0 vs 7 days; p < 0.01). The number (p = 0.56) and distribution of PI-RADS lesions (p = 0.67) were not different between the groups. All procedures were completed successfully with similar perioperative complications rate (p = 0.24). For patients with PI-RADS 3-5 lesions, the csPCa detection rate (49% vs 41%, p = 0.55) was similar for One-Stop vs Standard, respectively. The negative predictive value of mpMRI (PI-RADS 1-2) for csPCa was 78% for One-Stop vs 83% for Standard (p = 0.99). On multivariate analysis, age, prostate volume and PI-RADS score (p < 0.01), but not diagnostic pathway, predicted csPCa detection.

CONCLUSION

A One-Stop PCa diagnostic pathway is feasible, safe, and provides similar outcomes in a shorter time compared to the Standard two-visit diagnostic pathway.

[Fusion biopsies for primary diagnosis of prostate cancer : Implementation, benefits, and clinical aspects]

Prostate carcinoma is one of the most common tumors worldwide. Histological confirmation by biopsy is an obligatory part of the diagnostic approach. The main problem of the 10-12-fold transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) biopsy, which has so far been regarded as the gold standard, is the underdiagnosis of clinically significant cancer. MRI-based procedures, so-called fusion biopsies, have shown superior results when compared to conventional biopsies. There are three different approaches (cognitive and software-based MRI/TRUS fusion and in-bore biopsy) with comparable detection rates but differences in the technical aspects and time involvement. In order to reduce fusion errors, targeted biopsies should consist of multiple cores. There is currently no clear preference for the access pathway (transrectal or transperineal), but clinical parameters such as infection risk or location of the tumor can influence the decision. While the German S3 guideline considers MRI prior to primary biopsy to be optional, the 2019 European Association of Urology guidelines already recommend MRI prior to biopsy for all patients. The combination of MRI-targeted and systematic biopsy offers the highest detection rates with the disadvantage that more low-risk tumors are diagnosed. Both the patient and the urologist benefit from an improved informative value of the biopsy when deciding on active surveillance as well as when planning invasive therapies.