The Clinical Value of Performing an MRI before Prostate Biopsy

Paradigm Shift in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Pre-Biopsy Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Targeted Biopsy

With regard to the indolent clinical characteristics of prostate cancer (PCa), the more selective detection of clinically significant PCa (CSC) has been emphasized in its diagnosis and management. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has advanced technically, and recent international cooperation has provided a standardized imaging and reporting system for prostate MRI. Accordingly, prostate MRI has recently been investigated and utilized as a triage tool before biopsy to guide tissue sampling to increase the detection rate of CSC beyond the staging tool for patients in whom PCa was already confirmed on conventional systematic biopsy. Radiologists must understand the current paradigm shift for better PCa diagnosis and management. This article reviewed the recent literature, demonstrating the diagnostic value of pre-biopsy prostate MRI with targeted biopsy and discussed unsolved issues regarding the paradigm shift in the diagnosis of PCa.

Comparison of bi- and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to select men for active surveillance

Background

Active surveillance of men with prostate cancer relies on accurate risk assessments because it aims to avoid or delay invasive therapies and reduce overtreatment.

Purpose

To compare the diagnostic performance of pre-biopsy biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with confirmatory multiparametric MRI in selecting men for active surveillance.

Material and Methods

The study population included biopsy-naïve men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer undergoing biparametric MRI followed by combined (standard plus MRI targeted) biopsies. Men diagnosed with prostate cancer who were subsequently enrolled in active surveillance and underwent a confirmatory multiparametric MRI within three months of diagnosis were included in the study. Discrepancies between the pre-biopsy biparametric MRI and the confirmatory multiparametric MRI were assessed.

Results

Overall, 101 men (median age = 64 years; median prostate-specific-antigen level = 6.3 ng/mL) were included. Nine patients were re-biopsied after multiparametric MRI for the following reasons: suspicion of targeting error (three patients); a new suspicious lesion detected by multiparametric MRI (five patients); and an increase in tumor volume (one patient) compared with biparametric MRI. Confirmatory biopsies showed a Gleason grade group (GG) upgrade of ≥2 in 4/6 patients with suspicion of more advanced disease (missed suspicious lesion, increase in tumor volume) on multiparametric MRI. However, although multiparametric MRI subsequently detected a GG ≥ 2 prostate cancer lesion missed by biparametric MRI in 4% (4/101) of included men, the difference did not reach statistical significance (McNemar, P = 0.133).

Conclusion

Biparametric MRI could be used to select men eligible for active surveillance and a confirmatory multiparametric MRI performed shortly after inclusion seems unnecessary.

The diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging before biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

To determine the extent to which clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) can be detected in a routine National Health Service setting in men with no previous biopsy, when multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is introduced into the diagnostic pathway.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 1 090 mpMRIs were performed between July 2013 and April 2016 in biopsy-naïve men with an abnormal prostate-specific antigen level and/or digital rectal examination. Data were collected from patient records at the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust. mpMRI Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores were compared to transperineal or transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided biopsy findings as the reference standard. csPCa was defined as Gleason score of ≥3+4. The diagnostic accuracy of mpMRI was also assessed.

RESULTS

The mpMRI was interpretable in 1 023 men and 792 underwent biopsy, of which 106 were transperineal. The median number of cores taken in transperineal and TRUS-guided biopsy were 10 and 6, respectively. The detection rate of csPCa was 37%; csPCa rose from 15% of PI-RADS 1 and 2 to 86% of PI-RADS 5. The sensitivity, negative predictive value, specificity, and positive predictive value were 82%, 85%, 59% and 54%, respectively. The study is limited by its retrospective nature and lack of reporting of follow-up for 'missed cancers'. Men with low mpMRI PI-RADS were also less likely to undergo biopsy. Whilst this selection bias may overestimate the detection rate of csPCa, this reflects the shared decisions patients and clinicians make in day-to-day practice outside of research centres.

CONCLUSION

In a routine clinical setting, the higher the mpMRI PI-RADS, the greater the detection rate of csPCa in biopsy-naïve men. A normal mpMRI does not exclude csPCa; however, mpMRI may have utility in informing shared-decision making on whether to proceed to biopsy and subsequent treatment.

What Is the Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Excluding Prostate Cancer at Biopsy? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel

CONTEXT

It remains unclear whether patients with a suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa) and negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) can safely obviate prostate biopsy.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the literature assessing the negative predictive value (NPV) of mpMRI in patients with a suspicion of PCa.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases were searched up to February 2016. Studies reporting prebiopsy mpMRI results using transrectal or transperineal biopsy as a reference standard were included. We further selected for meta-analysis studies with at least 10-core biopsies as the reference standard, mpMRI comprising at least T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted imaging, positive mpMRI defined as a Prostate Imaging Reporting Data System/Likert score of ≥3/5 or ≥4/5, and results reported at patient level for the detection of overall PCa or clinically significant PCa (csPCa) defined as Gleason ≥7 cancer.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 48 studies (9613 patients) were eligible for inclusion. At patient level, the median prevalence was 50.4% (interquartile range [IQR], 36.4-57.7%) for overall cancer and 32.9% (IQR, 28.1-37.2%) for csPCa. The median mpMRI NPV was 82.4% (IQR, 69.0-92.4%) for overall cancer and 88.1% (IQR, 85.7-92.3) for csPCa. NPV significantly decreased when cancer prevalence increased, for overall cancer (r=-0.64, p<0.0001) and csPCa (r=-0.75, p=0.032). Eight studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Seven reported results for overall PCa. When the overall PCa prevalence increased from 30% to 60%, the combined NPV estimates decreased from 88% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 77-99%) to 67% (95% CI, 56-79%) for a cut-off score of 3/5. Only one study selected for meta-analysis reported results for Gleason ≥7 cancers, with a positive biopsy rate of 29.3%. The corresponding NPV for a cut-off score of ≥3/5 was 87.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

The NPV of mpMRI varied greatly depending on study design, cancer prevalence, and definitions of positive mpMRI and csPCa. As cancer prevalence was highly variable among series, risk stratification of patients should be the initial step before considering prebiopsy mpMRI and defining those in whom biopsy may be omitted when the mpMRI is negative.

PATIENT SUMMARY

This systematic review examined if multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan can be used to reliably predict the absence of prostate cancer in patients suspected of having prostate cancer, thereby avoiding a prostate biopsy. The results suggest that whilst it is a promising tool, it is not accurate enough to replace prostate biopsy in such patients, mainly because its accuracy is variable and influenced by the prostate cancer risk. However, its performance can be enhanced if there were more accurate ways of determining the risk of having prostate cancer. When such tools are available, it should be possible to use an MRI scan to avoid biopsy in patients at a low risk of prostate cancer.

Accuracy of staging of oral squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue: should incisional biopsy be done before or after magnetic resonance imaging?

Accurate staging of oral squamous cell carcinoma (oral SCC) is essential. Some clinicians delay diagnostic biopsy until after magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We retrospectively studied the clinical records and histopathological databases of 58 patients with SCC of the tongue; 39 had biopsy before MRI and 19 afterwards. In the group who had the biopsy first, eight were up-staged, nine were down-staged, and in 22 the T stage was accurate. In those who had MRI first, the corresponding figures were two, six, and 11, respectively. The time between initial biopsy and excision was significantly longer in the MRI group (43 days), than in the biopsy group (16 days) (p<0.001). Differences in staging between the two groups were not significant. Whether the biopsy was taken before or after MRI does not seem to affect the accuracy of clinical staging, and to delay biopsy until after staging may be unnecessary.

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

A systematic review was conducted to investigate the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MPMRI) followed by targeted biopsy in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPC) and to compare it with transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS-guided) systematic biopsy in patients with an elevated risk of prostate cancer who are either biopsy-naive or who have a previous negative TRUS-guided biopsy. MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE (1997 to April 2014), the Cochrane Library and six relevant conferences were searched to find eligible studies. Search terms indicative of 'prostate cancer' and 'magnetic resonance imaging' with their alternatives were used. Twelve systematic reviews, 52 full texts and 28 abstracts met the preplanned study selection criteria; data from 15 articles were extracted. In patients with an elevated risk of prostate cancer who were biopsy-naive, MPMRI followed by targeted biopsy could detect 2-13% of CSPC patients whom TRUS-guided systematic biopsy missed; TRUS-guided systematic biopsy could detect 0-7% of CSPC patients whom MPMRI followed by targeted biopsy missed. In patients with an elevated risk of prostate cancer who had a previous negative TRUS-guided biopsy, MPMRI followed by targeted biopsy detected more CSPC patients than repeated TRUS-guided systematic biopsy in all four studies, with a total of 516 patients, but only one study reached a statistically significant difference. In patients with an elevated risk of prostate cancer who are biopsy-naive, there is insufficient evidence for MPMRI followed by targeted biopsy to be considered the standard of care. In patients who had a prior negative TRUS-guided systematic biopsy and show a growing risk of having CSPC, MPMRI followed by targeted biopsy may be helpful to detect more CSPC cases as opposed to a repeat TRUS-guided systematic biopsy.

MRI-targeted prostate biopsy: a review of technique and results

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is of interest for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer and mpMRI-targeted biopsies are being used increasingly in clinical practice. Target acquisition is performed using a range of magnet strengths and varying combinations of anatomical and functional sequences. Target identification at the time of biopsy can be carried out in the MRI scanner (in-bore biopsy) or, more commonly, the MRI-target is biopsied under ultrasonographic guidance. Many groups use cognitive or visual registration, whereby the biopsy target is identified on MRI and ultrasonography is subsequently used to direct the needle to the same location. Other groups use registration software to show prebiopsy MRI data on real-time ultrasonography. The reporting of histological results in MRI-targeted biopsy studies varies greatly. The most useful reports compare the detection of clinically significant disease in standard cores versus mpMRI-targeted cores in the same cohort of men, as recommended by the STAndards of Reporting for MRI-Targeted biopsy studies (START) consensus panel. Further evidence is needed before an mpMRI-targeted strategy can be recommended as the standard intervention for men at risk of prostate cancer.

Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review

CONTEXT

Technical improvements in prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have resulted in the use of MRI to target prostate biopsies.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the literature to compare the accuracy of MRI-targeted biopsy with standard transrectal biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception until December 3, 2011, using the search criteria 'prostate OR prostate cancer' AND 'magnetic resonance imaging OR MRI' AND 'biopsy OR target'. Four reviewers independently assessed 4222 records; 222 records required full review. Fifty unique records (corresponding to 16 discrete patient populations) directly compared an MRI-targeted with a standard transrectal approach.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Evidence synthesis was used to address specific questions. Where MRI was applied to all biopsy-naive men, 62% (374 of 599) had MRI abnormalities. When subjected to a targeted biopsy, 66% (248 of 374) had prostate cancer detected. Both targeted and standard biopsy detected clinically significant cancer in 43% (236 or 237 of 555, respectively). Missed clinically significant cancers occurred in 13 men using targeted biopsy and 12 using a standard approach. Targeted biopsy was more efficient. A third fewer men were biopsied overall. Those who had biopsy required a mean of 3.8 targeted cores compared with 12 standard cores. A targeted approach avoided the diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer in 53 of 555 (10%) of the presenting population.

CONCLUSIONS

MRI-guided biopsy detects clinically significant prostate cancer in an equivalent number of men versus standard biopsy. This is achieved using fewer biopsies in fewer men, with a reduction in the diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer. Variability in study methodology limits the strength of recommendation that can be made. There is a need for a robust multicentre trial of targeted biopsies.

Prebiopsy magnetic resonance spectroscopy and imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Existing screening investigations for the diagnosis of early prostate cancer lack specificity, resulting in a high negative biopsy rate. There is increasing interest in the use of various magnetic resonance methods for improving the yield of transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies of the prostate in men suspected to have prostate cancer. We review the existing status of such investigations.

METHODS

A literature search was carried out using the Pubmed database to identify articles related to magnetic resonance methods for diagnosing prostate cancer. References from these articles were also extracted and reviewed.

RESULTS

Recent studies have focused on prebiopsy magnetic resonance investigations using conventional magnetic resonance imaging, dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging, magnetization transfer imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy of the prostate. This marks a shift from the earlier strategy of carrying out postbiopsy magnetic resonance investigations. Prebiopsy magnetic resonance investigations has been useful in identifying patients who are more likely to have a biopsy positive for malignancy.

CONCLUSIONS

Prebiopsy magnetic resonance investigations has a potential role in increasing specificity of screening for early prostate cancer. It has a role in the targeting of biopsy sites, avoiding unnecessary biopsies and predicting the outcome of biopsies.