Inherited risk assessment and its clinical utility for predicting prostate cancer from diagnostic prostate biopsies

BACKGROUND

Many studies on prostate cancer (PCa) germline variants have been published in the last 15 years. This review critically assesses their clinical validity and explores their utility in prediction of PCa detection rates from prostate biopsy.

METHODS

An integrative review was performed to (1) critically synthesize findings on PCa germline studies from published papers since 2016, including risk-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), polygenic risk score methods such as genetic risk score (GRS), and rare pathogenic mutations (RPMs); (2) exemplify the findings in a large population-based cohort from the UK Biobank (UKB); (3) identify gaps for implementing inherited risk assessment in clinic based on experience from a healthcare system; (4) evaluate available GRS data on their clinical utility in predicting PCa detection rates from prostate biopsies; and (5) describe a prospective germline-based biopsy trial to address existing gaps.

RESULTS

SNP-based GRS and RPMs in four genes (HOXB13, BRCA2, ATM, and CHEK2) were significantly and consistently associated with PCa risk in large well-designed studies. In the UKB, positive family history, RPMs in the four implicated genes, and a high GRS (>1.5) identified 8.12%, 1.61%, and 17.38% of men to be at elevated PCa risk, respectively, with hazard ratios of 1.84, 2.74, and 2.39, respectively. Additionally, the performance of GRS for predicting PCa detection rate on prostate biopsy was consistently supported in several retrospective analyses of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-biopsy cohorts. Prospective studies evaluating the performance of all three inherited measures in predicting PCa detection rate from contemporary multiparametric MRI (mpMRI)-based biopsy are lacking. A multicenter germline-based biopsy trial to address these gaps is warranted.

CONCLUSIONS

The complementary performance of three inherited risk measures in PCa risk stratification is consistently supported. Their clinical utility in predicting PCa detection rate, if confirmed in prospective clinical trials, may improve current decision-making for prostate biopsy.

MRI/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Targeted Biopsy and Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Systematic Biopsy for Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Purpose

For men suspected of having prostate cancer (PCa), the transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided systematic biopsy (SB) was performed. MRI/TRUS fusion guided-targeted biopsy (MRI-TB) could enhance PCa detection, allowing sampling of sites at higher risk which were not obvious with TRUS alone. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the detection rates of prostate cancer by MRI-TB or MRI-TB plus SB versus SB, mainly for diagnosis of high-risk PCa.

Methods

A literature Search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. We searched from inception of the databases up to January 2021.

Results

A total of 5831 patients from 26 studies were included in the present meta-analysis. Compared to traditional TRUS-guided biopsy, MRI-TB had a significantly higher detection rate of clinically significant PCa (RR=1.27; 95%CI 1.15-1.40; p<0.001) and high-risk PCa (RR=1.41; 95% CI 1.22-1.64; p<0.001), while the detection rate of clinically insignificant PCa was lower (RR=0.65; 95%CI 0.55-0.77; p<0.001). MRI-TB and SB did not significantly differ in the detection of overall prostate cancer (RR=1.04; 95%CI 0.95-1.12; p=0.41). Compared with SB alone, we found that MRI-TB plus SB diagnosed more cases of overall, clinically significant and high-risk PCa (p<0.001).

Conclusion

Compared with systematic protocols, MRI-TB detects more clinically significant and high-risk PCa cases, and fewer clinically insignificant PCa cases. MRI-TB combined with SB enhances PCa detection in contrast with either alone but did not reduce the diagnosis rate of clinically insignificant PCa.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#searchadvanced, CRD42021218475.

The role of MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer

Background

The aim of this work is to evaluate the detection rate of magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound (MRI/TRUS) fusion-guided biopsy for clinically significant prostate cancers (Cs PCas), with particular interest in biopsy-naive patients and patients in active surveillance. MRI-targeted biopsy improves cancer detection rate (DR) in patients with prior negative biopsies; the current literature focuses on biopsy naive patients. We also evaluated the pathologic concordance between biopsies and surgical specimens.

Methods

MRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsies were performed between February 2016 and February 2019. Patients with previous negative biopsies, biopsy-naive or in active surveillance (AS) were included. Cs PCas were defined through Epstein's criteria.

Results

A total of 416 men were enrolled. The overall DRs and Cs PCa DRs were 49% and 34.3%, respectively. Cs PCas were 17.2%, 44.9% and 73.4%, respectively for PI-RADS 3, 4 or 5. Among biopsy-naive patients, 34.8% were found to have a Cs PCa, while a 43.6% tumour upgrading was achieved in men with a low risk of PCa. In patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP), the concordance between biopsy Gleason score (GS) (bGS) and pathological GS (pGS) was 90.8%.

Conclusion

Our study highlights the role of MRI/TRUS fusion prostate biopsy in the detection of PCa in patients with previous negative biopsies focusing on Cs PCa diagnosis. The MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy is also emerging as a diagnostic tool in biopsy-naïve patients and deserves a fundamental role in AS protocols. A greater concordance between bGS and pGS can be achieved with targeted biopsies.

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.

Multiparametric MRI fusion-guided prostate biopsy in biopsy naive patients: Preliminary results from 80 patients

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the early results of transrectal prostate biopsies performed under the guidance of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in biopsy naive patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Biopsy naive patients who had prostate-specific antigen level 4-10 ng/mL and/or abnormal digital rectal examination findings and provided informed consent were examined using mpMRI. The study included 80 patients with an MRI-defined lesion with a Prostate Imaging and Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) score of ≥3. All mpMRIs were reported by the same uro-radiologist according to PIRADS version 2. An MRI-targeted biopsy was performed by an ultrasonography system with rigid fusion registration software. The first two to five core biopsies per MRI-defined lesions were obtained, and then a standard random 12-core biopsy was performed. Transrectal biopsies were performed under local anesthesia or sedoanalgesia.

RESULTS

Of the 80 patients, 29 (36.3%) were found to have cancer using the conventional 12-core biopsy, but only 20 (25%) were found to have prostate cancer using the MRI-targeted prostate biopsy. Combining the two biopsy methods (conventional+MRI-targeted), cancer detection rate increased to 43.8% (35/80 patients). The cancer detection rate using the combined method was statistically higher than that using the conventional biopsy method (p=0.03). Using the conventional biopsy method, 960 core biopsies were collected from 80 patients. Of the 960 core biopsies, 111 (11.6%) were found to be cancer. Further, 101 suspected lesions were detected using mpMRI in 80 patients. In addition, 397 core biopsies were obtained from these lesions. Of the 397 core biopsies, 62 (15.6%) were reported as prostate cancer. The core positivity rate of MR-targeted biopsy was statistically higher than that of conventional biopsy (p=0.04).

CONCLUSION

The preliminary results of MRI-targeted prostate biopsy combined with conventional biopsy suggested that the combined biopsy method was crucial in prostate cancer diagnosis especially in patients with prostate cancer suspicion and no biopsy history. However, larger sample prospective studies are needed to validate the effectiveness of MRI-targeted biopsy and combined biopsy methods.

Significance of MRI/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Three-Dimensional Model-Guided, Targeted Biopsy Based on Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Systematic Biopsy in Prostate Cancer Detection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To assess MRI/Transrectal Ultrasound (TRUS) fusion three-dimensional model-guided targeted biopsy (3D-Tb) versus TRUS-guided systematic biopsy (Sb) in detecting overall and high-Gleason-score (≥7) prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

Pubmed and Web of science were searched. Studies with men having a suspicious lesion on MRI were included, which were divided into initial biopsy, previous negative biopsy, and mixed groups in meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Totally 13 cohorts in 12 studies, with 3,225 men were included. In total population, 3D-Tb and Sb did not differ significantly in the PCa detection rate (43.1 vs. 42.6%, p = 0.36), but after excluding initial biopsy group, the superiority of 3D-Tb became significant (p = 0.01); 3D-Tb had a significantly higher detection rate of high-Gleason-score PCa compared to Sb (30.0 vs. 24.1%, p < 0.05); 3D-Tb plus Sb significantly improved the PCa detection rate based on Sb alone (52.7 vs. 42.6%, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In men with increased serum PSA and/or abnormal DRE and suspicious lesion on MRI but non-previous evidence of PCa, 3D-Tb plus Sb improves the PCa detection rate based on Sb alone. 3D-Tb alone has better performance in detecting high-Gleason-score PCa, and tends to have a higher PCa detection rate in population with previous negative biopsy compared to Sb.

[Diagnostic significance of multiparametric MRI combined with US-fusion guided biopsy of the prostate in patients with increased PSA levels and negative standard biopsy results to detect significant prostate cancer - Correlation with the Gleason score. Korrelation mit dem Gleason Score]

AIMS

To increase diagnostic precision and to reduce overtreatment of low-risk malignant disease, multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) combined with ultrasound (US) fusion guided biopsy of the prostate were performed.

METHODS

In 99 male patients with increased PSA plasma levels and previous negative standard biopsy procedures, mpMRI was carried out followed by US fusion guided perineal biopsy. PI-RADS-Data (PS) of mpMRI and histopathological Gleason score (GS) were categorized and statistically compared.

RESULTS

Lesions in 72/99 (73 %) of patients were determined to be suspect of malignancy, based on a PS 4 or 5. In 33/99 (33 %) of patients, malignancy could not be confirmed by histopathology. With regard to the remaining 66 patients with previous negative biopsy results, 42 (64 %) were diagnosed with a low-grade carcinoma (GS 6, 7a) and 24 (36 %) with a high-grade carcinoma (GS ≥ 7b). The proportion of corresponding results in mpMRI (PS 4-5) when a high-grade carcinoma had been detected, was 21/24 (88 %), which related to a sensitivity of 88 % and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 85 % (p = 0,002). In addition, 35 of 42 patients (83%), graded PS 4-5 in mpMRI, were diagnosed with low-grade carcinoma-positive (p < 0,001). Sensitivity to differentiation between low- and high-grade carcinomas (GS ≤ 7a vs. ≥ 7b) by means of PS was 88 % with a NPV of 70 % (p = 0,74).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that mpMRI combined with US-fusion guided biopsy is able to detect considerably higher rates of clinically relevant prostate malignancies compared to conventional diagnostic procedures. However, no statistical significance could be shown regarding the differentiation between high- and low-grade carcinomas. It is hoped that the hybrid methods PSMA-PET/CT or PSMA-PET/MRI will lead to the next optimization step in the differentiation between high- and low-grade carcinomas which so far has been unsatisfactory.

Relationship between Gleason score and apparent diffusion coefficients of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

We assessed the correlation between the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and pathological Gleason score (GS) of prostate cancer patients.

METHODS

A total of 125 patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging before radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer were included in this study. ADC values were compared with different GS. We used receiver operating characteristic analysis and determined the ADC cutoff value to differentiate tumours with a GS of 6 from those with a GS ≥7.

RESULTS

We identified 34 patients (27.2%) with a GS of 6; 33 patients (26.4%) with a GS of 7; 22 patients (17.6%) with a GS of 8; and 36 patients (28.8%) with a GS of ≥9. The mean ADC value for disease with a GS of 6 was 0.914 ± 0.161 ×10^-3 mm²/s; GS of 7: 0.741 ± 0.164 ×10^-3 mm²/s; GS of 8: 0.679 ± 0.130 ×10^-3 mm²/s; and GS of ≥9: 0.593 ± 0.089 ×10^-3 mm²/s. An ADC value of 0.830 ×10^-3mm²/s was the best cutoff value to identify prostate cancer with a GS of 6.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed an inverse relationship between GS and ADC value. Moreover, a cutoff ADC value may help differentiate disease with a GS of 6 from disease with a GS ≥7.

Elastic Versus Rigid Image Registration in Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

The main difference between the available magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound (MRI-TRUS) fusion platforms for prostate biopsy is the method of image registration being either rigid or elastic. As elastic registration compensates for possible deformation caused by the introduction of an ultrasound probe for example, it is expected that it would perform better than rigid registration.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare rigid with elastic registration by calculating the detection odds ratio (OR) for both subgroups. The detection OR is defined as the ratio of the odds of detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) by MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy compared with systematic TRUS biopsy. Secondary objectives were the OR for any PCa and the OR after pooling both registration techniques.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The electronic databases PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were systematically searched for relevant studies according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Statement. Studies comparing MRI-TRUS fusion and systematic TRUS-guided biopsies in the same patient were included. The quality assessment of included studies was performed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Eleven papers describing elastic and 10 describing rigid registration were included. Meta-analysis showed an OR of csPCa for elastic and rigid registration of 1.45 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21-1.73, p<0.0001) and 1.40 (95% CI: 1.13-1.75, p=0.002), respectively. No significant difference was seen between the subgroups (p=0.83). Pooling subgroups resulted in an OR of 1.43 (95% CI: 1.25-1.63, p<0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

No significant difference was identified between rigid and elastic registration for MRI-TRUS fusion-guided biopsy in the detection of csPCa; however, both techniques detected more csPCa than TRUS-guided biopsy alone.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We did not identify any significant differences in prostate cancer detection between two distinct magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion systems which vary in their method of compensating for prostate deformation.

Magnetic resonance imaging - ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy outperforms standard approaches in detecting prostate cancer: A meta-analysis

The aim of the present study was to determine whether magnetic resonance imaging - ultrasound (MRI-US) fusion prostate biopsy is superior to systematic biopsy for making a definitive diagnosis of prostate cancer. The two strategies were also compared regarding their ability to detect clinically significant and insignificant prostate cancer. A literature search was conducted through the PubMed, EMBASE and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases using appropriate search terms. A total of 3,415 cases from 21 studies were included in the present meta-analysis. Data were expressed as relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval. The results revealed that MRI-US fusion biopsy achieved a higher rate of overall prostate cancer detection compared with systematic biopsy (RR=1.09; P=0.047). Moreover, MRI-US fusion biopsy detected more clinically significant cancers compared with systematic biopsy (RR=1.22; P<0.01). It is therefore recommended that multi-parametric MRI-US is performed in men suspected of having prostate cancer to optimize the detection of clinically significant disease, while reducing the burden of biopsies.

Transperineal prostate biopsy with ECHO-MRI fusion. Biopsee system. Initial experience

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to present our initial experience with the stereotactic echo-MRI fusion system for diagnosing prostate cancer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between September 2014 and January 2015, we performed 50 prostate biopsies using the stereotactic echo-MRI fusion system. The 3-Tesla multiparameter MR images were superimposed using this image fusion system on 3D echo images obtained with the Biopsee system for the exact locating of areas suspected of prostate cancer. The lesions were classified using the Prostate Imaging Report and Date System.

RESULTS

We assessed a total of 50 patients, with a mean age of 63 years (range, 45-79), a mean prostate-specific antigen level of 8 ng/mL (range, 1.9-20) and a mean prostate volume of 52mL (range, 12-118). Prostate cancer was diagnosed in 69% of the patients and intraepithelial neoplasia in 6%. The results of the biopsy were negative for 24% of the patients. The results of the biopsy and MRI were in agreement for 62% of the patients; however, 46% also had a tumour outside of the suspicious lesion. We diagnosed 46% anterior tumours and 33% apical tumours. One patient had a haematuria, another had a haematoma and a third had acute urine retention.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiparametric prostatic MRI helps identify prostate lesions suggestive of cancer. The Biopsee echo-MRI fusion system provides for guided biopsy and increases the diagnostic performance, reducing the false negatives of classical biopsies and increasing the diagnosis of anterior tumours. Transperineal access minimises the risk of prostatic infection and sepsis.

Is magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy better than systematic prostate biopsy? An updated meta- and trial sequential analysis

We systematically reviewed the literature to determine whether Magnetic Resonance/Ultrasound (MR/US) fusion prostate biopsy is better than systematic biopsy for making a definitive diagnosis of prostate cancer. The two strategies were also compared for their ability to detect lesions with different degrees of suspicion on MRI and clinically significant prostate cancer, and the number of cores needed for diagnosis. The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Knowledge, and Medline were searched from inception until May 1, 2015. Meta-analysis was conducted via RevMan 5.2 software. Data was expressed as risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval. Trial sequential analysis was used to assess risk of random errors. Fourteen trials were included, encompassing a total of 3105 participants. We found that MR/US fusion biopsy detected more prostate cancers than systematic biopsy (46.9% vs. 44.2%, p=0.03). In men with moderate/high MRI suspicion, MR/US fusion biopsy did better than systematic biopsy (RR = 1.46; p < 0.05) for making a diagnosis. Moreover, MR/US fusion biopsy detected more clinically significant cancers than systematic biopsy (RR = 1.19; p < 0.05). We recommend that MR/US fusion prostate biopsy be used to better detect prostate cancer, particularly in patients with moderate/high suspicion lesions on MRI.

Endorectal multiparametric 3-tesla magnetic resonance imaging associated with systematic cognitive biopsies does not increase prostate cancer detection rate: a randomized prospective trial

PURPOSE

To investigate prostate cancer (PC) detection rate, employing endorectal multiparametric 3-tesla magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) driving subsequent cognitive systematic prostatic biopsy (CSPB) versus a homogenous group of patients who did not undergo endorectal MRI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A series of patients with a first negative biopsy were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomized into two groups: Group A: patients underwent MRI and subsequent CSPB; Group B: patients that did not undergo MRI. Each patient underwent a 13-core sampling. Patients from Group A had four cores more for each MRI suspected lesion. The cancer detection rate was calculated for each group with regard to possible matches or mismatches between MRI evidence and pathological reports.

RESULTS

Two hundred consecutive patients were investigated. Fifty out of 200 (25 %) patients had a diagnosis of PC, 24 in Group A and 26 in Group B. In Group A, 67 patients (67 %) were positive for suspected lesions at the MRI. The mismatch between MRI findings and the CSPB outcome was 61 % with an MRI-driven detection rate of 15 %. Group B detection rate was 26 % with no significant differences versus Group A (P = NS). Patient discomfort was higher in Group A (82 %). The accuracy of CSPB was 41 % with a positive predictive value of 22.3 %. This rate is lower in high-grade cancers (11.9 %). The cost-effectiveness was higher in Group A.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostate cancer detection rate does not improve by CSPB. The accuracy of CSPB was lower in high-grade PC, and a higher cost was found with CSPB.

The value of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography (MRI/US)-fusion biopsy platforms in prostate cancer detection: a systematic review

Despite limitations considering the presence, staging and aggressiveness of prostate cancer, ultrasonography (US)-guided systematic biopsies (SBs) are still the 'gold standard' for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Recently, promising results have been published for targeted prostate biopsies (TBs) using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography (MRI/US)-fusion platforms. Different platforms are USA Food and Drug Administration registered and have, mostly subjective, strengths and weaknesses. To our knowledge, no systematic review exists that objectively compares prostate cancer detection rates between the different platforms available. To assess the value of the different MRI/US-fusion platforms in prostate cancer detection, we compared platform-guided TB with SB, and other ways of MRI TB (cognitive fusion or in-bore MR fusion). We performed a systematic review of well-designed prospective randomised and non-randomised trials in the English language published between 1 January 2004 and 17 February 2015, using PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. Search terms included: 'prostate cancer', 'MR/ultrasound(US) fusion' and 'targeted biopsies'. Extraction of articles was performed by two authors (M.G. and A.A.) and were evaluated by the other authors. Randomised and non-randomised prospective clinical trials comparing TB using MRI/US-fusion platforms and SB, or other ways of TB (cognitive fusion or MR in-bore fusion) were included. In all, 11 of 1865 studies met the inclusion criteria, involving seven different fusion platforms and 2626 patients: 1119 biopsy naïve, 1433 with prior negative biopsy, 50 not mentioned (either biopsy naïve or with prior negative biopsy) and 24 on active surveillance (who were disregarded). The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was used to assess the quality of included articles. No clear advantage of MRI/US fusion-guided TBs was seen for cancer detection rates (CDRs) of all prostate cancers. However, MRI/US fusion-guided TBs tended to give higher CDRs for clinically significant prostate cancers in our analysis. Important limitations of the present systematic review include: the limited number of included studies, lack of a general definition of 'clinically significant' prostate cancer, the heterogeneous study population, and a reference test with low sensitivity and specificity. Today, a limited number of prospective studies have reported the CDRs of fusion platforms. Although MRI/US-fusion TB has proved its value in men with prior negative biopsies, general use of this technique in diagnosing prostate cancer should only be performed after critical consideration. Before bringing MRI/US fusion-guided TB in to general practice, there is a need for more prospective studies on prostate cancer diagnosis.

Evaluation of the 'Prostate Interdisciplinary Communication and Mapping Algorithm for Biopsy and Pathology' (PIC-MABP)

INTRODUCTION

Experience from interdisciplinary cooperation revealed the need for a prostate mapping scheme to communicate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) findings between radiologists, urologists, and pathologists, which should be detailed, yet easy to memorize. For this purpose, the 'Prostate interdisciplinary communication and mapping algorithm for biopsy and pathology' (PIC-MABP) was developed. This study evaluated the accuracy of the PIC-MABP system.

METHODS

PIC-MABP was tested and validated in findings of 10 randomly selected patients from routine clinical practise with 18 histologically proven cancer lesions. Patients received an mpMRI of the prostate prior to prostatectomy. After surgery the prostates were prepared as whole-mount step sections. Cancer lesions, which were found suspicious on mpMRI, were assigned to the according PIC-MABP sectors by a radiologist. MpMRI slides were masked and sent to seven urologists from different centres, providing only the PIC-MABP location of each lesion. Urologists marked the accordant regions. Then mpMRI slides were unmasked, and the correctness of each mark was evaluated.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventeen of the 126 marks (93%) were correctly assigned. Detection rates differed for lesions >0.5 cc compared with lesions <0.5 cc (p < 0.005): 3/7 (43%) marks were correctly assigned in lesions <0.3 cc, 16/21 (76%) in lesions with 0.3-0.5 cc, and 98/98 (100%) in lesions >0.5 cc. Interobserver agreement was good for lesions >0.5 cc and poor for lesions <0.3 cc (Fleiss Kappa 1 vs. 0.0175).

CONCLUSION

PIC-MABP seems to be a reliable system to communicate the location of mpMRI findings >0.5 cc between different disciplines and can be a useful guidance for cognitive mpMRI/TRUS fusion biopsy.

Twelve Core Template Prostate Biopsy is an Unreliable Tool to Select Patients Eligible for Focal Therapy

Introduction: To determine whether unilateral prostate cancer diagnosed at 12-core prostate biopsy harbours relevant prostate cancer foci in contralateral lobe in cases eligible for hemiablative focal therapy. Material and Methods: We analysed 112 radical prostatectomies of unilateral Gleason 6/7 prostate cancer based on prostate biopsy information. The presence of significant prostate cancer foci and/or the index lesion in the contralateral lobe is described. A subanalysis is performed in cases of Gleason score 6 and in cases of very-low-risk prostate cancer. Results: Contralateral prostate cancer was present in 69.6% of cases, fulfilling significant prostate cancer criteria in 33% and being the index lesion in 32%. No significant differences were found when analysing the Gleason 6 group (73% contralateral prostate cancer, 34% significant prostate cancer and 35% index lesion) or the very-low-risk prostate cancer group (80% contralateral prostate cancer, 29% significant prostate cancer and 45% index lesion). Conclusions: The assumption of unilateral prostate cancer based on 12-core template prostate biopsy information is unreliable. In about one third of the cases, there will be focus of significant prostate cancer or the index lesion in the contralateral lobe. This information should be taken into account when hemiablative focal therapies are considered.