Analyzing the learning curves of a novice and an experienced urologist for transrectal magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy

The role of urology and radiology in prostate biopsy: current trends and future perspectives

PURPOSE

Prostate biopsy is central to the accurate histological diagnosis of prostate cancer. In current practice, the biopsy procedure can be performed using a transrectal or transperineal route with different technologies available for targeting of lesions within the prostate. Historically, the biopsy procedure was performed solely by urologists, but with the advent of image-guided techniques, the involvement of radiologists in prostate biopsy has become more common. Herein, we discuss the pros, cons and future considerations regarding their ongoing role.

METHODS

A narrative review regarding the current evidence was completed. PubMed and Cochrane central register of controlled trials were search until January 2024. All study types were of consideration if published after 2000 and an English language translation was available.

RESULTS

There are no published studies that directly compare outcomes of prostate biopsy when performed by a urologist or radiologist. In all published studies regarding the learning curve for prostate biopsy, the procedure was performed by urologists. These studies suggest that the learning curve for prostate biopsy is between 10 and 50 cases to reach proficiency in terms of prostate cancer detection and complications. It is recognised that many urologists are poorly able to accurately interpret multi parametric (mp)-MRI of the prostate. Collaboration between the specialities is of importance with urology offering the advantage of being involved in prior and future care of the patient while radiology has the advantage of being able to expertly interpret preprocedure MRI.

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence to suggest that prostate biopsy should be solely performed by a specific specialty. The most important factor remains knowledge of the relevant anatomy and sufficient volume of cases to develop and maintain skills.

Impact of operator expertise on transperineal free-hand mpMRI-fusion-targeted biopsies under local anaesthesia for prostate cancer diagnosis: a multicenter prospective learning curve

PURPOSE

Transperineal mpMRI-targeted fusion prostate biopsies (TPFBx) are recommended for prostate cancer diagnosis, but little is known about their learning curve (LC), especially when performed under local anaesthesia (LA). We investigated how operators' and institutions' experience might affect biopsy results.

METHODS

Baseline, procedure and pathology data of consecutive TPFBx under LA were prospectively collected at two academic Institutions, from Sep 2016 to May 2019. Main inclusion criterion was a positive MRI. Endpoints were biopsy duration, clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate on targeted cores (csCDR-T), complications, pain and urinary function. Data were analysed per-centre and per-operator (with ≥ 50 procedures), comparing groups of consecutive patient, and subsequently through regression and CUSUM analyses. Learning curves were plotted using an adjusted lowess smoothing function.

RESULTS

We included 1014 patients, with 27.3% csCDR-T and a median duration was 15 min (IQR 12-18). A LC for biopsy duration was detected, with the steeper phase ending after around 50 procedures, in most operators. No reproducible evidence in favour of an impact of experience on csPCa detection was found at operator's level, whilst a possible gentle LC of limited clinical relevance emerged at Institutional level; complications, pain and IPSS variations were not related to operator experience.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of TPFBx under LA was feasible, safe and efficient since early phases with a relatively short learning curve for procedure time.

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.

Temporal changes of PIRADS scoring by radiologists and correlation to radical prostatectomy pathological outcomes

Purpose

To assess temporal improvement of prostate image reporting and data system (PIRADS) 3-5 lesion correlation to histopathologic findings from radical prostatectomy (RP) in prostate cancer (PCa).

Materials and methods

A total of 1481 patients who underwent RP for biopsy-proven PCa between 2015 and 2019 were divided into 14 groups of 100 sequential readings for the evaluation of histopathological correlation with PIRADS readings. Temporal trends of PIRADS distribution and predictive performance for RP pathology were evaluated to assess underlying changes in prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) interpretation by radiologists.

Results

PIRADS 4-5 lesions were significantly correlated with the increasing rates of Gleason Group (GG) upgrade (p = 0.044) and decreasing rate of GG downgrade (p = 0.016) over time. PIRADS ≥3 lesions read after median 2 years of experience were shown to independently predict intermediate-high-risk (GG ≥ 3) PCa (odds ratio 2.93, 95% confidence interval 1.00-8.54; P= 0.049) in RP pathology. Preoperative GG ≥ 3 biopsy lesions with PIRADS 4-5 lesions were significantly more susceptible to GG upgrade (P= 0.035) and GG ≥ 4 RP pathology (p = 0.003) in experienced reads, in contrast to insignificant findings in early readings (p = 0.588 and 0.248, respectively).

Conclusion

Preoperative MRI reports matched with RP pathology suggest an improved prediction of adverse pathology in PIRADS 3-5 lesions over time, suggesting a temporal change in PIRADS interpretation and predictive accuracy. Institutions with low volume experience should use caution in solely relying on MRI for predicting tumor characteristics. Future prospective trials and larger scale assessments are required to further validate our results.