Optimal biopsy approach for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer

Research progress on the role of lipoxygenase and its inhibitors in prostate cancer

Prostate cancer (PCa) has become a common disease among middle-aged and elderly men. The lipoxygenase (LOX) pathway plays a crucial role in the occurrence, development, invasion and metastasis of PCa and is therefore considered a new target for the prevention and treatment of PCa. 5-LOX and 12-LOX have a promoting effect on the occurrence, development, invasion and metastasis of PCa. 15-LOX-2 has an inhibitory effect on PCa. LOX inhibitors can effectively inhibit the metabolic activity of LOX. The research aims to review the mechanism of action and inhibitors of LOX in PCa, in order to provide relevant references for the prevention and treatment of PCa.

A Propensity Score-matched Comparison of Micro-ultrasound-guided Transrectal and Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion-guided Transperineal Prostate Biopsies for Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer

Background and objective

High-resolution micro-ultrasound (microUS) is an advanced imaging tool. Our objective was to determine whether systematic microUS use for transrectal biopsy (TRBx) improves the detection rate for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in comparison to transperineal biopsy (TPBx) performed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/conventional transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion software.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed data for men who underwent prostate biopsies, including those on active surveillance (AS). TRBx was performed under microUS guidance, while MRI/TRUS fusion was consistently used to guide TPBx. Patients were matched according to propensity score matching (PSM). The primary endpoint was comparison of the csPCa detection rate with the two approaches. Secondary endpoints included predictors of csPCa (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2, assessed via multivariable logistic regression) and complication rates.

Key findings and limitations

Overall, 1423 patients were enrolled. After applying PSM we identified an analytical cohort of 1094 men, 582 in the TRBx group and 512 in the TPBx group. There was no significant difference in the csPCa detection rate between the TRBx (45%) and TPBx (51%) groups (p = 0.07). Complications occurred in nine of 1094 patients (1%). On adjusted multivariable analysis, TPBx had a similar csPCa detection rate to TRBx (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.26;p = 0.09). Predictors of csPCa detection were a positive family history (aOR 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-2.35; p = 0.002); age (aOR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06; p < 0.001); positive digital rectal examination (aOR 2.35, 95% CI 1.70-3.25; p < 0.001); prostate-specific antigen density ≥0.15 ng/ml/cm3 (aOR 3.23, 95% CI 2.47-4.23; p < 0.001); and a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score ≥3 (aOR 2.46; 95% CI 1.83-3.32; p < 0.001). Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study, the risk of underestimating the complication rate, and the heterogeneity of biopsy indications.

Conclusions and clinical implications

TRBx using microUS alone showed a comparable csPCa detection rate to TPBx guided by MRI/TRUS fusion software. Given the better visualization and real-time detection of suspicious zones with microUS, the potential for improvement in the csPCa detection rate with greater integration of microUS in the TPBx setting warrants further investigation.

Patient summary

We compared the ability of two different prostate biopsy approaches to detect clinically significant prostate cancer. We found that transrectal biopsy guided by micro-ultrasound had similar detection rates to transperineal biopsy guided by a combination of magnetic resonance imaging and conventional ultrasound. More research is needed to confirm the potential of micro-ultrasound for transperineal biopsy.

A challenging diagnosis of prostate cancer seeding in the perineal needle-tract after transperineal biopsy: is PET-CT the imaging of choice?

Perineal seeding is an extremely rare complication after prostate biopsy. We found a perineal localization of prostatic adenocarcinoma 5 years after the transperineal biopsy in a patient with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer. The tumor was identified by a18F-Fluorocholin positron emission tomography-computed tomography (18F-FCH PET-CT) performed after a sudden rise of PSA levels during androgen deprivation therapy and after a negative CT scan. This case report underscores the challenge one may encounter in detecting perineal prostate cancer metastasis after a biopsy when using traditional imaging with CT scan alone or MRI, and the added diagnostic value of PET-CT imaging.

Lesion size may affect diagnostic capabilities of MRI-guided ultrasound fusion biopsy and cognitive targeted biopsy for clinically significant prostate cancer

MRI-guided targeted biopsy (MRGB) was recommended as part of biopsy paradigm of prostate cancers by current guidelines. This study aimed to analyze the diagnostic efficacy of MRGB and systemic biopsy (SB), and to compare diagnostic capabilities within subgroups of MRGB: MRI-cognitive biopsy (MRCB) and MRI-fusion biopsy (MRFB). We retrospectively enrolled patients who underwent MRGB for suspicious malignant lesion(s) identified on MRI in a single tertiary center, sample size was 74 patients. An mpMRI was performed prior to biopsy and reviewed by an experienced radiologist specialized in prostate cancer. Per-person results of MRGB and each concomitant SB were analyzed as independent biopsies for its positive biopsy rate and positive core percentage. Per-lesion results of MRFB and MRCB were compared for the detection rate. Variables of interest were analyzed with t-test, chi-squared test, and logistic regression analysis. Statistical analyses were performed with IBM Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS), Version 23 (IBM, Armonk, New York). Total of 74 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were enrolled. MRFB had higher PCa detection rate comparing to both MRCB and SB (56.1%, 30.3%, and 33.9% respectively, p value = 0.036); clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection rate was also significantly higher in MRFB group (43.9%, 24.2%, and 16.9% in each group respectively, p value = 0.011). In per-lesion analysis, MRCB and MRFB had no significant difference in PCa and csPCa detection rate (41.0% vs. 26.2% and 29.5% vs. 16.7% respectively, p value = 0.090 and 0.103). In the lesion ≦ 1.3 cm group, MRFB could achieve higher PCa detection rate, comparing to MRCB (36.4% vs. 14.3%, p value = 0.047); there were also higher positive rates for PCa and csPCa per biopsied cores (22.1% vs. 6.8% and 15.6% vs. 2.7%, p value = 0.029 and 0.028, respectively). Further logistic regression of multi-variate analysis in subgroup of lesion ≦ 1.3 cm revealed that PIRADS score and biopsy method were significant predictors of positive biopsy result for PCa (p value = 0.045 and 0.026, respectively) and for csPCa (p value = 0.043 and 0.025, respectively). In patients receiving trans-perineal prostate biopsy, MRFB had higher cancer detection rate than MRCB and SB. In per lesion comparison, MRFB and MRCB had similar diagnostic accuracy. However, in lesions with diameter less than 1.3 cm, MRFB can provided better diagnose value for PCa and csPCa than MRCB.

Advanced prostate cancer diagnosed by bone metastasis biopsy immediately after initial negative prostate biopsy: a case report and literature review

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a prevalent male malignancy that originates in the epithelial cells of the prostate. In terms of incidence and mortality of malignant tumors in men, PCa ranks second and fifth globally and first and third among men in Europe and the United States, respectively. These figures have gradually increased in recent years. The primary modalities used to diagnose PCa include prostate-specific antigen (PSA), multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), and prostate puncture biopsy. Among these techniques, prostate puncture biopsy is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of PCa; however, this method carries the potential for missed diagnoses. The preoperative evaluation of the patient in this study suggested advanced PCa. However, the initial prostate puncture biopsy was inconsistent with the preoperative diagnosis, and instead of waiting for a repeat puncture of the prostate primary, we performed a biopsy of the rib metastasis, which was later diagnosed as advanced PCa.

Prostate MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: Update and future directions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In recent decades, there has been an increasing role for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC). The purpose of this review is to provide an update and outline future directions for the role of MRI in the detection of csPC.

RECENT FINDINGS

In diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer pre-biopsy, advances include our understanding of MRI-targeted biopsy, the role of biparametric MRI (non-contrast) and changing indications, for example the role of MRI in screening for prostate cancer. Furthermore, the role of MRI in identifying csPC is maturing, with emphasis on standardization of MRI reporting in active surveillance (PRECISE), clinical staging (EPE grading, MET-RADS-P) and recurrent disease (PI-RR, PI-FAB). Future directions of prostate MRI in detecting csPC include quality improvement, artificial intelligence and radiomics, positron emission tomography (PET)/MRI and MRI-directed therapy.

SUMMARY

The utility of MRI in detecting csPC has been demonstrated in many clinical scenarios, initially from simply diagnosing csPC pre-biopsy, now to screening, active surveillance, clinical staging, and detection of recurrent disease. Continued efforts should be undertaken not only to emphasize the reporting of prostate MRI quality, but to standardize reporting according to the appropriate clinical setting.

Clinical and economic impact of the introduction of pre-biopsy MRI-based assessment on a large prostate cancer centre diagnostic population and activity: 10 years on

INTRODUCTION

Prostate mpMRI was introduced in 2011 as a secondary test and subsequently integrated into a prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostics unit representing a population of approximately 550,000 people. The following represents an audit of its step-wise introduction between 2 index years, 2009 and 2018, focusing on the activity, patient outcomes and economic benefits. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The 2 distinct years were selected for relying on a transrectal ultrasound biopsy pathway in 2009 to an mpMRI-based pathway in 2018. All referrals were retrospectively screened and compared for age, PSA levels, DRE findings, biopsy history, biopsy and mpMRI allocation data. Cost analysis was determined using local unit procedure costs.

RESULTS

Patients referred included 648 in 2009 and 714 in 2018. mpMRI seldomly informed decision to biopsy in 2009 (9.8%), while in 2018 it was performed in the pre-biopsy setting in 87.9% cases and enabled biopsy avoidance in 137 patients. In 2018, there was a 31.8% decrease in the number of biopsies in patients without previous PCa diagnosis, coupled with an increase in diagnostic rates of csPCa, from 28.6 to 49.0% (p < 0.0001) and a reduction in negative biopsy rates from 52.3 to 33.8%. mpMRI had a positive impact on the system with reduced patient morbidity and post-procedural complications. The estimated overall cost savings amount to approximately £75,000/year for PCa diagnosis and £11,000/year due to reduced complications.

CONCLUSION

Our evaluation shows the mpMRI-based pathway has improved early detection of csPCa and reduction of repeat biopsies, resulting in significant financial benefits for the local healthcare system.

Risk stratification of prostate cancer with MRI and prostate-specific antigen density-based tool for personalized decision making

OBJECTIVES

MRI is now established for initial prostate cancer diagnosis; however, there is no standardized pathway to avoid unnecessary biopsy in low-risk patients. Our study aimed to test previously proposed MRI-focussed and risk-adapted biopsy decision models on a real-world dataset.

METHODS

Single-centre retrospective study performed on 2055 biopsy naïve patients undergoing MRI. Diagnostic pathways included "biopsy all", "MRI-focussed" and two risk-based MRI-directed pathways. Risk thresholds were based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density as low (<0.10 ng mL-2), intermediate (0.10-0.15 ng mL-2), high (0.15-0.20 ng mL-2), or very high-risk (>0.20 ng mL-2). The outcome measures included rates of biopsy avoidance, detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), missed csPCa, and overdiagnosis of insignificant prostate cancer (iPCa).

RESULTS

Overall cancer rate was 39.9% (819/2055), with csPCa (Grade-Group ≥2) detection of 30.3% (623/2055). In men with a negative MRI (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System, PI-RADS 1-2), the risk of cancer was 1.2%, 2.6%, 9.0%, and 12.9% in the low, intermediate, high, and very high groups, respectively; for PI-RADS score 3 lesions, the rates were 10.5%, 14.3%, 25.0%, and 33.3%, respectively. MRI-guided pathway and risk-based pathway with a low threshold missed only 1.6% csPCa with a biopsy-avoidance rate of 54.4%, and the risk-based pathway with a higher threshold avoided 62.9% (1292/2055) of biopsies with 2.9% (61/2055) missed csPCa detection. Decision curve analysis found that the "risk-based low threshold" pathway has the highest net benefit for probability thresholds between 3.6% and 13.9%.

CONCLUSION

Combined MRI and PSA-density risk-based pathways can be a helpful decision-making tool enabling high csPCa detection rates with the benefit of biopsy avoidance and reduced iPCa detection.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This real-world dataset from a large UK-based cohort confirms that combining MRI scoring with PSA density for risk stratification enables safe biopsy avoidance and limits the over-diagnosis of insignificant cancers.

Patient-reported pain associated with grid-based transperineal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasound (US) software fusion biopsy of the prostate under local anesthesia: a multicenter experience

Background

Biopsy by transperineal (TP) approach is recommended standard for prostate cancer (PC) diagnosis. To avoid pain, patients undergoing TP biopsy may be offered sedation or general anesthesia. Our aim was to investigate the degree of patient-reported pain for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasound (US) fusion biopsy of the prostate being performed under local anesthesia (LA) and to study for possible factors associated with increased risk of significant pain (SP) in this setting.

Methods

In this retrospective observational study, we reviewed data of consecutive patients without a prior diagnosis of PC who underwent MRI/US software fusion biopsy of the prostate under LA with lidocaine at two centers between May 2020 and April 2022, and who reported their periprocedural pain on a Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale (0-10). We defined SP as reported pain score of 6-10. Patient and procedure characteristics together with SP were studied for interdependencies.

Results

A total of 299 patients were included. Median pain score was 2 (interquartile range: 2-4), with SP having been reported by 55 (18.4%) patients. Among patient characteristics, only age demonstrated association with SP [odds ratio (OR), per 10 years =0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.35-0.80, P=0.003] and patients aged 62 or above were significantly less likely to report SP (OR =0.33, 95% CI: 0.18-0.60, P<0.001).

Conclusions

Performing TP MRI/US fusion prostate biopsy under LA is associated with low rates of SP, with the risk being significantly lower in older men. The results of this study can serve as evidence resource for preprocedural counselling in patients especially concerned about the risk of pain.

Transperineal US-MRI Fusion-Guided Biopsy for the Detection of Clinical Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Cognitive and Software-Assisted Technique

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to find potential differences in clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection rates between transperineal software-assisted fusion biopsy (saFB) and cognitive fusion biopsies (cFB).

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify comparative studies using PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus according to the PICOS criteria. Cancer detection and complication rates were pooled using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method with the random effect model and reported as odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4 software by Cochrane Collaboration. The quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, using RoB 2 for randomized studies and ROBINS-I for retrospective and nonrandomized ones.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included for the meta-analysis, including 1149 cases in software-based and 963 cases in cognitive fusion biopsy. The detection rates of csPCa were similar between the two groups (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.74-1.37, p = 0.95). Study heterogeneity was low (I2 55%).

CONCLUSION

There is no actual evidence of the superiority of saFB over cFB in terms of the csPCa detection rate. Operator experience and software availability can drive the choice of one fusion technique over the other.

A Systematic Review of the Current Status of Magnetic Resonance-Ultrasound Images Fusion Software Platforms for Transperineal Prostate Biopsies

Given this new context, our objective is to recognize the suitability of the currently available software for image fusion and the reported series using the transperineal route, as well as to generate new evidence on the complementarity of the directed and systematic biopsies, which has been established through the transrectal approach.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

This systematic review, registered in Prospero (CRD42022375619), began with a bibliographic search that was carried out in PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) criteria and the studied eligibility based on the Participants, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes (PICO) strategy were followed. Warp analysis of selected studies was performed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. In addition, a Google search of all currently available fusion platforms was performed. Our Google search found 11 different commercially available robots to perform transperineal image fusion biopsies, of which 10 devices have published articles supporting their diagnostic effectiveness in transperineal prostate biopsies.

RESULTS

A total of 30 articles were selected and the characteristics and results of the biopsies of 11,313 patients were analyzed. The pooled mean age was 66.5 years (63-69). The mean pooled PSA level was 7.8 ng/mL (5.7-10.8). The mean pooled prostate volume was 45.4 cc. (34-56). The mean pooled PSA density was 0.17 (0.12-0.27). The overall cancer detection rate for all prostate cancers was 61.4%, while for csPCa it was 47.8%. PCa detection rate was more effective than that demonstrated in the systematic transrectal biopsy. However, the detection of csPCa in the systematic biopsy was only 9.5% in the reported series. To standardize our review, we grouped prostate cancer screening results according to the population studied and the software used. When the same populations were compared between elastic and rigid software, we found that rigid biopsies had a higher csPCa detection rate than biopsies with elastic fusion systems.

CONCLUSION

Platforms performing prostate biopsy using transperineal image fusion have better detection rates of csPCa than systematic transrectal biopsies. Rigid fusion systems have a better csPCa detection rate than elastic ones. We found no diagnostic differences between the different types of robotic systems currently available. The complementarity of systematic biopsy has also been demonstrated in transperineal imaging fusion biopsies.

Vector Prostate Biopsy: A Novel Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Image Fusion Transperineal Biopsy Technique Using Electromagnetic Needle Tracking Under Local Anaesthesia

BACKGROUND

Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is now standard for assessment of suspected prostate cancer (PCa). A variety of approaches to MRI-based targeting has revolutionised prostate biopsies.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the procedure and show the accuracy and tolerability of a novel Vector MRI/ultrasound fusion transperineal (TP) biopsy technique that uses electromagnetic (EM) needle tracking under local anaesthesia (LA).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Vector prostate biopsy using BiopSee fusion software, EM tracking technology, and transrectal ultrasound was performed in 69 patients meeting the biopsy criteria in two UK centres between September 2020 and August 2022.

SURGICAL PROCEDURE

Stepper-mounted rectal ultrasound images were fused with MRI scans. LA was applied into two defined perineal tracks and a needle sheath with an EM sensor was inserted. The biopsy needle was directed precisely through the sheath to MRI targets under EM tracking. Biopsies were taken without antibiotic prophylaxis.

MEASUREMENTS

Cancer detection (any PCa; grade group ≥2), side effects, and patient experience measures were recorded.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Cancer detection in patients with Likert 4-5 lesions was 98% for any PCa and 83% for grade group ≥2. According to the 50 questionnaires returned, 42 patients (84%) reported no or minimal pain, while 40 (80%) reported no or minimal discomfort. No episodes of postoperative urinary retention occurred, and only one patient required treatment for infection. Limitations include the low patient number and incomplete responses to questionnaires.

CONCLUSIONS

This novel Vector technique provides a feasible and tolerable procedure for MRI/ultrasound fusion TP biopsy under LA, with high cancer detection rates. This is achieved while maintaining patient comfort and with minimal rates of complications.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We report a novel technique that uses electromagnetic needle tracking to perform highly accurate and comfortable prostate biopsies through the perineum under local anaesthetic.

Natural History of Patients with Prostate MRI Likert 1-3 and Development of RosCaP: a Multivariate Risk Score for Clinically Significant Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Clinically significant prostate cancer (csCaP) with Gleason ≥3 + 4 is found in 10% negative prebiopsy multiparametric (mp) MRI cases and varies widely for equivocal mpMRI cases. The objective of this study was to investigate long-term outcomes of patients with negative and equivocal mpMRIs and to develop a predictive score for csCaP risk stratification in this group.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent an upfront mpMRI between May 2015 and March 2018 with an MRI score Likert 1 to 3 were included in the study. Patients had either a CaP diagnosis at MRI-targeted biopsy or were not diagnosed and attended follow-up in the community. Outcomes were analysed through the Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox Model. Regression coefficients of significant variables were used to develop a Risk of significant Cancer of the Prostate score (RosCaP).

RESULTS

At first assessment 281/469 patients had mpMRI only and 188/469 mpMRI and biopsy, 26 csCaP were found at biopsy, including 10/26 in Likert 3 patients. 12/371 patients discharged without CaP after first assessment were diagnosed with csCaP during a median of 34.2 months' follow-up, 11/12 diagnosis occurred in patients omitting initial biopsy. csCaP diagnosis-free survival was 95.7% in the MRI group and 99.1% in the biopsy group. From these outcomes, a continuous RosCaP score was developed: RosCaP = 0.083 x Age - 0.202 x (1/PSA Density) + 0.786 (if Likert 3), and 4 risk classes were proposed. Limitations include retrospective design and absence of external validation.

CONCLUSION

Age, PSA Density and MRI Likert score were significantly associated to the risk of csCaP and utilised to devise the novel RosCap predictive score focused to support risk assessment in patients with negative or equivocal mpMRI results.

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.

Prostate MRI Qualification: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review

Prostate MRI is now established as a first-line investigation for individuals presenting with suspected localized or locally advanced prostate cancer. Successful delivery of the MRI-directed pathway for prostate cancer diagnosis relies on high-quality imaging as well as the interpreting radiologist's experience and expertise. Radiologist certification in prostate MRI may help limit interreader variability, optimize outcomes, and provide individual radiologists with documentation of meeting predefined standards. This AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review summarizes existing certification proposals, recognizing variable progress across regions in establishing prostate MRI certification programs. To our knowledge, Germany is the only country with a prostate MRI certification process that is currently available for radiologists. However, prostate MRI certification programs have also recently been proposed in the United States and United Kingdom and by European professional society consensus panels. Recommended qualification processes entail a multifaceted approach, incorporating components such as minimum case numbers, peer learning, course participation, continuing medical education credits, and feedback from pathology results. Given the diversity in health care systems, including in the provision and availability of MRI services, national organizations will likely need to take independent approaches to certification and accreditation. The relevant professional organizations should begin developing these programs or continue existing plans for implementation.