Comparative Effectiveness of Techniques in Targeted Prostate Biopsy

Value of cognitive fusion targeted and standard systematic transrectal prostate biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to compare the accuracies of cognitive fusion-guided targeted biopsy (TB), systematic biopsy (SB), and combined TB+SB for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) in males with lesions detected by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We conducted a retrospective analysis of individuals who underwent prostate biopsy at Peking University People's Hospital (Beijing, China), with an emphasis on patients with both transrectal TB and SB. The main objective was to determine the precisions of SB, TB, and TB+SB for diagnosing PCa and csPCa. We also evaluated the detection rates of TB, SB, TB+ipsilateral-SB (ipsi-SB), TB+contralateral-SB (contra-SB), and TB+SB for PCa and csPCa in patients with unilateral MRI lesions. We compared the diagnostic yields of the various biopsy schemes using the McNemar's test. A total of 180 patients were enrolled. The rates of PCa detection using TB, SB, and TB+SB were 52.8%, 62.2%, and 66.7%, respectively, and the corresponding rates for csPCa were 46.1%, 56.7%, and 58.3%, respectively. Among patients with unilateral MRI lesions, the PCa detection rates for TB, SB, TB+ipsi-SB, TB+contra-SB, and TB+SB were 53.3%, 64.8%, 65.6%, 61.5%, and 68.0%, respectively. TB+ipsi-SB detected 96.4% of PCa and 95.9% of csPCa cases. These findings suggest that the combination of TB+SB has better diagnostic accuracy compared with SB or TB alone. For patients with unilateral MRI lesions, the combination of TB+ipsi-SB may be suitable in clinical settings.

In-bore MRI targeted biopsy. Lights and shadows

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MpMRI) and MRI-guided biopsy (MRGB) are the diagnostic gold standard in the management of men with suspicious prostate cancer (PCa). There are not enough studies, yet, that compare TRUS-MRGB, COG-TB and IB-MRGB. Despite IB-MRGB could be more accurate in detecting PCa in smaller lesions and a less operator dependent technique, there are still some concerns regarding high resource costs and the chance of missing lesions not visible at MRI or detected by systematic biopsy.

Transperineal vs transrectal magnetic resonance and ultrasound image fusion prostate biopsy: a pair-matched comparison

The objective of this study was to compare transperineal (TP) versus transrectal (TR) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy (PBx). Consecutive men who underwent prostate MRI followed by a systematic biopsy. Additional target biopsies were performed from Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PIRADS) 3-5 lesions. Men who underwent TP PBx were matched 1:2 with a synchronous cohort undergoing TR PBx by PSA, Prostate volume (PV) and PIRADS score. Endpoint of the study was the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa; Grade Group ≥ 2). Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed. Results were considered statistically significant if p < 0.05. Overall, 504 patients met the inclusion criteria. A total of 168 TP PBx were pair-matched to 336 TR PBx patients. Baseline demographics and imaging characteristics were similar between the groups. Per patient, the CSPCa detection was 2.1% vs 6.3% (p = 0.4) for PIRADS 1-2, and 59% vs 60% (p = 0.9) for PIRADS 3-5, on TP vs TR PBx, respectively. Per lesion, the CSPCa detection for PIRADS 3 (21% vs 16%; p = 0.4), PIRADS 4 (51% vs 44%; p = 0.8) and PIRADS 5 (76% vs 84%; p = 0.3) was similar for TP vs TR PBx, respectively. However, the TP PBx showed a longer maximum cancer core length (11 vs 9 mm; p = 0.02) and higher cancer core involvement (83% vs 65%; p < 0.001) than TR PBx. Independent predictors for CSPCa detection were age, PSA, PV, abnormal digital rectal examination findings, and PIRADS 3-5. Our study demonstrated transperineal MRI/TRUS fusion PBx provides similar CSPCa detection, with larger prostate cancer core length and percent of core involvement, than transrectal PBx.

Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Targeted by Magnetic Resonance Imaging Cognitive Fusion

Prostate cancer is among the most frequently diagnosed cancers and a leading cause of cancer-related death in men. Currently, the most reliable and widely used imaging test for prostate cancer diagnosis is multiparametric pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). Modern biopsy techniques are based on the computerised merging of ultrasound and MRI images to provide better vision during the biopsy procedure (Fusion Biopsy). However, the method is expensive due to high equipment cost. Cognitive fusion of ultrasound and MRI images has recently emerged as a cheaper and easier alternative to computerised fusion. The aim of this prospective study is to perform an in-patient comparison of the systematic prostate biopsy procedure (SB) vs. cognitive fusion (CF) guided prostate biopsy method in terms of safety, ease of use, cancer detection rate and clinically significant cancer detection. We enrolled 103 patients with suspected prostate cancer that were biopsy naive, with PSA > 4 ng/dL and PIRADS score of 3, 4 or 5. All patients received a transperineal standard 12-18 cores systematic biopsy (SB) and a four-cores targeted cognitive fusion (CF) biopsy. Following the prostate biopsy, 68% of the patients were diagnosed with prostate cancer (70/103 patients). SB diagnosis rate was 62% while CF biopsy was slightly better with a 66% rate. There was a significant 20% increase in clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate for the CF compared to SB (p < 0.05) and a significant prostate cancer risk upgrade from the low to the intermediate risk category (13%, p = 0.041). Transperineal cognitive fusion targeted prostate biopsy is a straightforward biopsy method that is easy to perform and is a safe alternative to standard systematic biopsy with improved significant cancer detection accuracy. A combined targeted and systematic approach should be used for the best diagnostic results.

External validation of the Rotterdam prostate cancer risk calculator within a high-risk Dutch clinical cohort

PURPOSE

This study aims to externally validate the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC)-3/4 and RPCRC-MRI within a Dutch clinical cohort.

METHODS

Men subjected to prostate biopsies, between 2018 and 2021, due to a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa) were retrospectively included. The performance of the RPCRC-3/4 and RPCRC-MRI was analyzed in terms of discrimination, calibration and net benefit. In addition, the need for recalibration and adjustment of risk thresholds for referral was investigated. Clinically significant (cs) PCa was defined as Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4.

RESULTS

A total of 1575 men were included in the analysis. PCa was diagnosed in 63.2% (996/1575) of men and csPCa in 41.7% (656/1575) of men. Use of the RPCRC-3/4 could have prevented 37.3% (587/1575) of all MRIs within this cohort, thereby missing 18.3% (120/656) of csPCa diagnoses. After recalibration and adjustment of risk thresholds to 20% for PCa and 10% for csPCa, use of the recalibrated RPCRC-3/4 could have prevented 15.1% (238/1575) of all MRIs, resulting in 5.3% (35/656) of csPCa diagnoses being missed. The performance of the RPCRC-MRI was good; use of this risk calculator could have prevented 10.7% (169/1575) of all biopsies, resulting in 1.2% (8/656) of csPCa diagnoses being missed.

CONCLUSION

The RPCRC-3/4 underestimates the probability of having csPCa within this Dutch clinical cohort, resulting in significant numbers of csPCa diagnoses being missed. For optimal performance of a risk calculator in a specific cohort, evaluation of its performance within the population under study is essential.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Free-Hand and Fixed-Arm Spatial Tracking Methodologies in Software-Guided MRI-TRUS Fusion Prostate Biopsy Platforms

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cancer detection rate (CDR) between the 2 dominant spatial tracking methodologies in software-guided MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy (SGF-Bx) platforms: fixed-arm and free-hand.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on published primary analyses of prospective trials and cohort studies that enrolled biopsy-naïve patients for SFG-Bx. Inclusion criteria included the use of the Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS) v2.0 or later and the targeting of lesions graded as PI-RADS 3 or higher. Random effects models were used to assess the overall prostate cancer (PCa) CDR and the clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) CDR for both platforms. csPCa was standardized to a definition of Gleason Grade Group 2 or higher when possible. Subgroup analysis was performed by stratifying studies into the average number of cores taken per lesion.

RESULTS

The PCa CDR was 0.674 for free-hand systems and 0.681 for fixed-arm systems. The csPCa CDR was 0.492 for free-hand systems and 0.500 for fixed-hand systems. There was no significant difference between free-hand and fixed-arm cancer detection rates for both overall PCa (P = .88) and csPCa (P = .90). Subgroup analyses revealed significant PCa CDR and csPCa CDR differences (P < .001) between free-hand and fixed-arm platforms only when 2 cores per lesion were taken, in favor of fixed-arm platforms.

CONCLUSIONS

Fixed-arm platforms performed similarly in cancer detection to free-hand platforms but show a minor benefit on fewer samples. While tracking methodology differences appear subtle, further investigation into the clinical impact of platform-specific features are warranted.

Multiparametric ultrasound of prostate: role in prostate cancer diagnosis

Recent advances in ultrasonography (US) technology established modalities, such as Doppler-US, HistoScanning, contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS), elastography, and micro-ultrasound. The early results of these US modalities have been promising, although there are limitations including the need for specialized equipment, inconsistent results, lack of standardizations, and external validation. In this review, we identified studies evaluating multiparametric ultrasonography (mpUS), the combination of multiple US modalities, for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis. In the past 5 years, a growing number of studies have shown that use of mpUS resulted in high PCa and clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa) detection performance using radical prostatectomy histology as the reference standard. Recent studies have demonstrated the role mpUS in improving detection of CSPCa and guidance for prostate biopsy and therapy. Furthermore, some aspects including lower costs, real-time imaging, applicability for some patients who have contraindication for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and availability in the office setting are clear advantages of mpUS. Interobserver agreement of mpUS was overall low; however, this limitation can be improved using standardized and objective evaluation systems such as the machine learning model. Whether mpUS outperforms MRI is unclear. Multicenter randomized controlled trials directly comparing mpUS and multiparametric MRI are warranted.

Adequacy of samples obtained via percutaneous core-needle rebiopsy for EGFR T790M molecular analysis in patients with non-small cell lung cancer following acquired resistance to first-line therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

MICRO ABSTRACT

Rebiopsies characterizing resistance mutations in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) can guide personalized medicine and improve overall survival rates. In this systematic review, we examine the suitability of percutaneous core-needle biopsy (PT-CNB) to obtain adequate samples for molecular characterization of the acquired resistance mutation T790M. This review provides evidence that PT-CNB can obtain samples with high adequacy, with a mutation detection rate that is in accordance with prior literature.

BACKGROUND

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) comprises 85% of all lung cancers and has seen improved survival rates with the rise of personalized medicine. Resistance mutations to first-line therapies, such as T790M, however, render first-line therapies ineffective. Rebiopsies characterizing resistance mutations inform therapeutic decisions, which result in prolonged survival. Given the high efficacy of percutaneous core-needle biopsy (PT-CNB), we conducted the first systematic review to analyze the ability of PT-CNB to obtain samples of high adequacy in order to characterize the acquired resistance mutation T790M in patients with NSCLC.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive literature search across PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL. Search terms related to "NSCLC," "rebiopsy," and "PT-CNB" were used to obtain results. We included all prospective and retrospective studies that satisfied our inclusion and exclusion criteria. A random effects model was utilized to pool adequacy and detection rates of the chosen articles. We performed a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression to investigate the adequacy and T790M detection rates of samples obtained via PT-CNB.

RESULTS

Out of the 173 studies initially identified, 5 studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were chosen for our final cohort of 436 patients for meta-analysis. The pooled adequacy rate of samples obtained via PT-CNB was 86.92% (95% CI: [79.31%, 92.0%]) and the pooled T790M detection rate was 46.0% (95% CI: [26.6%, 66.7%]). There was considerable heterogeneity among studies (I² > 50%) in both adequacy and T790M detection rates.

CONCLUSION

PT-CNB can obtain adequate samples for T790M molecular characterization in NSCLC lung cancer patients. Additional prospective studies are needed to corroborate the results in this review.

A European Model for an Organised Risk-stratified Early Detection Programme for Prostate Cancer

CONTEXT

Overdiagnosis as the argument to stop prostate cancer (PCa) screening is less valid since the introduction of new technologies such as risk calculators (RCs) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). These new technologies result in fewer unnecessary biopsy procedures and fewer cases of both overdiagnosis and underdetection. Therefore, we can now adequately respond to the growing and urgent need for a structured risk assessment to detect PCa early.

OBJECTIVE

To provide expert discussion on the existing evidence for a previously published risk-stratified strategy regarding an organised population-based early detection programme for PCa.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The proposed algorithm for early detection of PCa emerged from expert consensus by the authors based on available evidence derived from a nonsystematic review of the current literature using Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library database, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN Registry, and the European Association of Urology guidelines on PCa.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Although not confirmed by the highest level of evidence, current literature and guidelines point towards an algorithm for early detection of PCa that starts with risk-based prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, followed by multivariable risk stratification with RCs. All men who are classified to be at intermediate and high risk are then offered prostate MRI. The combined data from RCs and MRI results can be used to select men for prostate biopsy. Low-risk men return to a risk-based safety net that includes individualised PSA-interval tests and, if necessary, repeated MRI. Depending on local availability, the use of the different risk stratification tools may be adapted.

CONCLUSIONS

We present a risk-stratified algorithm for an organised population-based early detection programme for clinically significant PCa. Although the proposed strategy has not yet been analysed prospectively, it exploits and may even improve the most important available benefits of "PSA-only" screening studies, while at the same time reduces unnecessary biopsies and overdiagnosis by using new risk stratification tools.

PATIENT SUMMARY

This paper presents a personalised strategy that enables selective early detection of prostate cancer by combining prostate-specific antigen (interval) testing' prediction models (risk calculators), and magnetic resonance imaging scans. This will likely lead to reduced prostate cancer-related morbidity and mortality, while reducing the need for prostate biopsy and limiting overdiagnosis.