Comparison of clinically significant prostate cancer detection by MRI cognitive biopsy and in-bore MRI-targeted biopsy for naïve biopsy patients

Prostate cancer detection and complications of MRI-targeted prostate biopsy using cognitive registration, software-assisted image fusion or in-bore guidance: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

BACKGROUND

Three primary strategies for MRI-targeted biopsies (TB) are available: Cognitive TB (COG-TB), MRI-US Fusion TB (FUS-TB), and In Bore TB (IB-TB). Despite nearly a decade of practice, a consensus on the preferred approach is lacking, with previous studies showing comparable PCa detection rates among the three methods.

METHODS

We conducted a search of PubMed, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases from 2014 to 2023, to identify studies comparing at least two of the three methods and reporting clinically significant PCa (csPCa) detection rates. The primary and secondary outcomes were to compare the csPCa and insignificant prostate cancer (iPCa, ISUP GG 1) detection rates between TB techniques. The tertiary outcome was to compare the complication rate between TB techniques. Detection rates were pooled using random-effect models. Planned sensitivity analyses included subgroup analysis according to the definition of csPCa and positive MRI, previous biopsy status, biopsy route, prostate volume, and lesion characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of twenty studies, involving 4928 patients, were included in the quantitative synthesis. The meta-analysis unveiled comparable csPCa detection rates among COG-TB (0.37), FUS-TB (0.39), and IB-TB (0.47). iPCa detection rate was also similar between TB techniques (COG-TB: 0.12, FUS-TB: 0.17, IB-TB: 0.18). All preplanned sensitivity analyses were conducted and did not show any statistically significant difference in the detection of csPCa between TB methods. Complication rates, however, were infrequently reported, and when available, no statistically significant differences were observed among the techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

This unique study, exclusively focusing on comparative research, indicates no significant differences in csPCa and iPCa detection rates between COG-TB, FUS-TB, and IB-TB. Decisions between these techniques may extend beyond diagnostic accuracy, considering factors such as resource availability and operator preferences. Well-designed prospective studies are warranted to refine our understanding of the optimal approach for TB in diverse clinical scenarios.

In-bore MRI-guided prostate biopsy in a patient group with PI-RADS 4 and 5 targets: A single center experience

PURPOSE

To determine the diagnostic yield of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guided in-bore biopsy in patients with high likelihood multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) findings, regarding overall and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection rates and concordance of biopsy and radical prostatectomy (RP) Gleason scores (GS).

METHODS

This retrospective study consisted of 277 Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) assessment category 4 and 5 targets in 246 patients (mean age, 65.7 years; median prostate specific antigen value, 7.75 ng/mL) who had undergone in-bore biopsy at our institution between 2012 and 2020. Eighty-one patients who underwent RP were eligible for the concordance analysis of biopsy and RP specimen GS.

RESULTS

Overall PCa detection rates were 80.5 % per patient (198/246) and 78 % per target (216/277) and 83.5 % and 67.4 % in primary (biopsy naive) and secondary (at least one negative prior biopsy) settings. csPCa was found in 63 % overall, 66 % of patients (132/200) in the primary, and 50 % of patients (23/46) in the secondary biopsy settings (p < 0.001). The prostate cancer detection rate was 68 % and 92 % in PI-RADS 4 and 5, respectively (p < 0.001). In the radical prostatectomy subcohort, 27.2 % of patients were upgraded, 8.6 % of patients were downgraded from needle biopsy. Significant complications occurred in 1.2 % of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

MRI-guided in-bore prostate biopsy has a high detection rate of csPCa in primary and secondary biopsy cohorts. Biopsy results were satisfactory in terms of the number of positive cores, cancer percentage in positive cores, and concordance of GS in needle biopsy and RP specimen.

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.