The Influence of Serum Prostate-Specific Antigen on the Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy versus Saturation Biopsy in Patients with Previous Negative Biopsy

Learning Curve of Transperineal MRI/US Fusion Prostate Biopsy: 4-Year Experience

This study aimed to evaluate the learning curve of transperineal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasound (US) fusion biopsy in a team composed of a single surgeon, a single radiologist, and a single pathologist. We prospectively enrolled 206 patients undergoing MRI/US fusion prostate biopsy and divided them into four cohorts by the year of biopsy. We analyzed temporal changes in clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC) detection rate, percentage of positive cores on biopsy, and Gleason upgrading rate after radical prostatectomy. The csPC detection rate by MRI/US fusion targeted biopsy (TB) increased significantly (from 35.3% to 60.0%, p = 0.01). With increased experience, the csPC detection rates for small (≤1 cm) and anterior target lesions gradually increased (from 41.2% to 51.6%, p = 0.5; from 54.5% to 88.2%, p = 0.8, respectively). The percentage of positive cores on TB increased significantly (from 18.4% to 44.2%, p = 0.001). The Gleason upgrading rate gradually decreased (from 22.2% to 11.1%, p = 0.4). In conclusion, with accumulated experience and teamwork, the csPC detection rate by TB significantly increased. Multidisciplinary team meetings and a free-hand biopsy technique were the key factors for overcoming the learning curve.

Positive Predictive Value of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

The variability of the positive predictive value (PPV) represents a significant factor affecting the diagnostic performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI).

OBJECTIVE

To analyze published studies reporting mpMRI PPV and the reasons behind the variability of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection rates on targeted biopsies (TBx) according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 categories.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A search of PubMed, Cochrane library's Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Scopus databases, from January 2015 to June 2020, was conducted. The primary and secondary outcomes were to evaluate the PPV of PI-RADS version 2 in detecting csPCa and any prostate cancer (PCa), respectively. Individual authors' definitions for csPCa and PI-RADS thresholds for positive mpMRI were accepted. Detection rates, used as a surrogate of PPV, were pooled using random-effect models. Preplanned subgroup analyses tested PPV after stratification for PI-RADS scores, previous biopsy status, TBx technique, and number of sampled cores. PPV variation over cancer prevalence was evaluated.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Fifty-six studies, with a total of 16 537 participants, were included in the quantitative synthesis. The PPV of suspicious mpMRI for csPCa was 40% (95% confidence interval 36-43%), with large heterogeneity between studies (I² 94%, p < 0.01). PPV increased according to PCa prevalence. In subgroup analyses, PPVs for csPCa were 13%, 40%, and 69% for, respectively, PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 (p < 0.001). TBx missed 6%, 6%, and 5% of csPCa in PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions, respectively. In biopsy-naïve and prior negative biopsy groups, PPVs for csPCa were 42% and 32%, respectively (p = 0.005). Study design, TBx technique, and number of sampled cores did not affect PPV.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis underlines that the PPV of mpMRI is strongly dependent on the disease prevalence, and that the main factors affecting PPV are PI-RADS version 2 scores and prior biopsy status. A substantially low PPV for PI-RADS 3 lesions was reported, while it was still suboptimal in PI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions. Lastly, even if the added value of a systematic biopsy for csPCa is relatively low, this rate can improve patient risk assessment and staging.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Targeted biopsy of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 lesions should be considered carefully in light of additional individual risk assessment corroborating the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer. On the contrary, the positive predictive value of highly suspicious lesions is not high enough to omit systematic prostate sampling.

Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, is an alternative test to systematic transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy in men suspected of having prostate cancer. At present, evidence on which test to use is insufficient to inform detailed evidence-based decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the index tests MRI only, MRI-targeted biopsy, the MRI pathway (MRI with or without MRI-targeted biopsy) and systematic biopsy as compared to template-guided biopsy as the reference standard in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer as the target condition, defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 2 or higher. Secondary target conditions were the detection of grade 1 and grade 3 or higher-grade prostate cancer, and a potential change in the number of biopsy procedures.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive systematic literature search up to 31 July 2018. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, eight other databases and one trials register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered for inclusion any cross-sectional study if it investigated one or more index tests verified by the reference standard, or if it investigated the agreement between the MRI pathway and systematic biopsy, both performed in the same men. We included only studies on men who were biopsy naïve or who previously had a negative biopsy (or a mix of both). Studies involving MRI had to report on both MRI-positive and MRI-negative men. All studies had to report on the primary target condition.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 tool. To estimate test accuracy, we calculated sensitivity and specificity using the bivariate model. To estimate agreement between the MRI pathway and systematic biopsy, we synthesised detection ratios by performing random-effects meta-analyses. To estimate the proportions of participants with prostate cancer detected by only one of the index tests, we used random-effects multinomial or binary logistic regression models. For the main comparisions, we assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

The test accuracy analyses included 18 studies overall.MRI compared to template-guided biopsy: Based on a pooled sensitivity of 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.83 to 0.95; 12 studies; low certainty of evidence) and a pooled specificity of 0.37 (95% CI: 0.29 to 0.46; 12 studies; low certainty of evidence) using a baseline prevalence of 30%, MRI may result in 273 (95% CI: 249 to 285) true positives, 441 false positives (95% CI: 378 to 497), 259 true negatives (95% CI: 203 to 322) and 27 (95% CI: 15 to 51) false negatives per 1000 men. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and inconsistency.MRI-targeted biopsy compared to template-guided biopsy: Based on a pooled sensitivity of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.69 to 0.87; 8 studies; low certainty of evidence) and a pooled specificity of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.90 to 0.97; 8 studies; low certainty of evidence) using a baseline prevalence of 30%, MRI-targeted biopsy may result in 240 (95% CI: 207 to 261) true positives, 42 (95% CI: 21 to 70) false positives, 658 (95% CI: 630 to 679) true negatives and 60 (95% CI: 39 to 93) false negatives per 1000 men. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and inconsistency.The MRI pathway compared to template-guided biopsy: Based on a pooled sensitivity of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.60 to 0.82; 8 studies; low certainty of evidence) and a pooled specificity of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94 to 0.98; 8 studies; low certainty of evidence) using a baseline prevalence of 30%, the MRI pathway may result in 216 (95% CI: 180 to 246) true positives, 28 (95% CI: 14 to 42) false positives, 672 (95% CI: 658 to 686) true negatives and 84 (95% CI: 54 to 120) false negatives per 1000 men. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision.Systemic biopsy compared to template-guided biopsy: Based on a pooled sensitivity of 0.63 (95% CI: 0.19 to 0.93; 4 studies; low certainty of evidence) and a pooled specificity of 1.00 (95% CI: 0.91 to 1.00; 4 studies; low certainty of evidence) using a baseline prevalence of 30%, systematic biopsy may result in 189 (95% CI: 57 to 279) true positives, 0 (95% CI: 0 to 63) false positives, 700 (95% CI: 637 to 700) true negatives and 111 (95% CI: 21 to 243) false negatives per 1000 men. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for study limitations and inconsistency.Agreement analyses: In a mixed population of both biopsy-naïve and prior-negative biopsy men comparing the MRI pathway to systematic biopsy, we found a pooled detection ratio of 1.12 (95% CI: 1.02 to 1.23; 25 studies). We found pooled detection ratios of 1.44 (95% CI 1.19 to 1.75; 10 studies) in prior-negative biopsy men and 1.05 (95% CI: 0.95 to 1.16; 20 studies) in biopsy-naïve men.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Among the diagnostic strategies considered, the MRI pathway has the most favourable diagnostic accuracy in clinically significant prostate cancer detection. Compared to systematic biopsy, it increases the number of significant cancer detected while reducing the number of insignificant cancer diagnosed. The certainty in our findings was reduced by study limitations, specifically issues surrounding selection bias, as well as inconsistency. Based on these findings, further improvement of prostate cancer diagnostic pathways should be pursued.