Pre-biopsy MRI as an adjunct for cancer detection in men with elevated PSA and no previous biopsy

Diagnostic Yield of Incremental Biopsy Cores and Second Lesion Sampling for In-Gantry MRI-Guided Prostate Biopsy

BACKGROUND. In-gantry MRI-guided biopsy (MRGB) of the prostate has been shown to be more accurate than other targeted prostate biopsy methods. However, the optimal number of cores to obtain during in-gantry MRGB remains undetermined. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic yield of obtaining an incremental number of cores from the primary lesion and of second lesion sampling during in-gantry MRGB of the prostate. METHODS. This retrospective study included 128 men with 163 prostate lesions who underwent in-gantry MRGB between 2016 and 2019. The men had a total of 163 lesions sampled with two or more cores, 121 lesions sampled with three or more cores, and 52 lesions sampled with four or more cores. A total of 40 men underwent sampling of a second lesion. Upgrade on a given core was defined as a greater International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group (GG) relative to the previously obtained cores. Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined as ISUP GG 2 or greater. RESULTS. The frequency of any upgrade was 12.9% (21/163) on core 2 versus 10.7% (13/121) on core 3 (p = .29 relative to core 2) and 1.9% (1/52) on core 4 (p = .03 relative to core 3). The frequency of upgrade to csPCa was 7.4% (12/163) on core 2 versus 4.1% (5/121) on core 3 (p = .13 relative to core 2) and 0% (0/52) on core 4 (p = .07 relative to core 3). The frequency of upgrade on core 2 was higher for anterior lesions (p < .001) and lesions with a higher PI-RADS score (p = .007); the frequency of upgrade on core 3 was higher for apical lesions (p = .01) and lesions with a higher PI-RADS score (p = .01). Sampling of a second lesion resulted in an upgrade in a single patient (2.5%; 1/40); both lesions were PI-RADS category 4 and showed csPCa. CONCLUSION. When performing in-gantry MRGB of the prostate, obtaining three cores from the primary lesion is warranted to optimize csPCa diagnosis. Obtaining a fourth core from the primary lesion or sampling a second lesion has very low yield in upgrading cancer diagnoses. CLINICAL IMPACT. To reduce patient discomfort and procedure times, operators may refrain from obtaining more than three cores or second lesion sampling.

Optimal biopsy strategy for prostate cancer detection by performing a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objective: With the increasing recognition of the over-diagnosis and over-treatment of prostate cancer (PCa), the choice of a better prostate biopsy strategy had confused both the patients and clinical surgeons. Hence, this network meta-analysis was conducted to clarify this question. Methods: In the current network meta-analysis, twenty eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 4,571 participants were comprehensively identified through Pubmed, Embase and Web of Science databases up to July 2017. The pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% credible interval (CrI) was calculated by Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted by using R-3.4.0 software with the help of package "gemtc" version 0.8.2. Results: Six different PCa biopsy strategies and four clinical outcomes were ultimately analyzed in this study. Although, the efficacy of different PCa biopsy strategies by ORs with corresponding 95% CrIs had not yet reached statistical differences, the cumulative rank probability indicated that overall PCa detection rate from best to worst was FUS-GB plus TRUS-GB, FUS-GB, CEUS, MRI-GB, TRUS-GB and TPUS-GB. In terms of clinically significant PCa detection, CEUS, FUS-GB or FUS-GB plus TRUS-GB had a higher, whereas TRUS-GB or TPUS-GB had a relatively lower significant detection rate. Meanwhile, TPUS-GB or TRUS-GB had a higher insignificant PCa detection rate. As for TRUS-guided biopsy, the general trend was that the more biopsy cores, the higher overall PCa detection rate. As for targeted biopsy, it could yield a comparable or even a better effect with fewer cores, compared with traditional random biopsy. Conclusion: Taken together, in a comprehensive consideration of four clinical outcomes, our outcomes shed light on that FUS-GB or FUS-GB plus TRUS-GB showed their superiority, compared with other puncture methods in the detection of PCa. Moreover, TPUS or TRUS-GB was more easily associated with the over-diagnosis and over-treatment of PCa. In addition, targeted biopsy was obviously more effective than traditional random biopsy. The subsequent RCTs with larger sample sizes were required to validate our findings.