Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Magnetic Resonance Imaging | Original Article

Do we need MRI in all biopsy naïve patients? A multicenter cohort analysis

Authors: Philipp Krausewitz, Angelika Borkowetz, Gernot Ortner, Kira Kornienko, Mike Wenzel, Niklas Westhoff, GESRU Academics Prostate Cancer Group

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 1/2024

Abstract

Purpose

The combined approach (CB) of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy (TB) and systematic biopsy (SB) is strongly recommended based on numerous studies in biopsy naïve men with suspicion of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCA). However, the unbalanced accessibility of MRI, challenges related to reimbursement and the scarcity of specialized medical practitioners continue to impede a widespread implementation.

Therefore, our objective was to determine a subset of men that could undergo SB without an increased risk of underdiagnosis at reduced expenses.

Methods

A multicenter analysis of 2714 men with confirmed PCA and suspicious MRI who underwent CB were enrolled. Cancer detection rates were compared between the different biopsy routes SB, TB and CB using McNemar paired test. Additionally, Gleason grade up- and down-grading was determined.

Results

CB detected more csPCA than TB and SB (p < 0.001), irrespective of MRI findings or biopsy route (transperineal vs. transrectal). Thereby, single biopsy approaches misgraded > 50% of csPCA. TB showed higher diagnostic efficiency, defined as csPCA detection per biopsy core than CB and SB (p < 0.001). For patients with abnormal DRE and PSA levels > 12.5 ng/ml, PSAD > 0.35 ng/ml/cm³, or > 75 years, SB and CB showed similar csPCA detection rates.

Conclusion

Conducting CB provides the highest level of diagnostic certainty and minimizes the risk of underdiagnosis in almost all biopsy-naive men. However, in patients with suspicious DRE and high PSA levels, PSAD, or advanced age solely using SB leads to similar csPCA detection rates. Thus, a reduced biopsy protocol may be considered for these men in case resources are limited.

Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389:815–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1CrossRefPubMed

Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M et al (2018) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 378:1767–1777. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B et al (2019) Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol 75:570–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023CrossRefPubMed

Drost F-JH, Osses DF, Nieboer D et al (2019) Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD012663. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012663.pub2CrossRefPubMed

Wichtmann BD, Zöllner FG, Attenberger UI et al (2021) Multiparametric MRI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: physical foundations, limitations, and prospective advances of diffusion-weighted MRI (Multiparametrische MRT in der Diagnose des Prostatakarzinoms: Physikalische Grundlagen, Limitationen und potenzielle Fortschritte der diffusionsgewichteten MRT). Rofo 193:399–409. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1276-1773CrossRefPubMed

Rosenzweig B, Laitman Y, Zilberman DE et al (2020) Effects of “real life” prostate MRI inter-observer variability on total needle samples and indication for biopsy. Urol Oncol 38:793.e13-793.e18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.03.015CrossRefPubMed

Westhoff N, Siegel F, Peter C et al (2019) Defining the target prior to prostate fusion biopsy: the effect of MRI reporting on cancer detection. World J Urol 37:327–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2400-xCrossRefPubMed

Shaish H, Feltus W, Steinman J et al (2018) Impact of a structured reporting template on adherence to prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 and on the diagnostic performance of prostate MRI for clinically significant prostate cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 15:749–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2018.01.034CrossRefPubMed

Westhoff N, Haumann H, Kriegmair MC et al (2019) Association of training level and outcome of software-based image fusion-guided targeted prostate biopsies. World J Urol 37:2119–2127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2605-zCrossRefPubMed

10.

Rosenkrantz AB, Ayoola A, Hoffman D et al (2017) The learning curve in prostate MRI interpretation: self-directed learning versus continual reader feedback. AJR Am J Roentgenol 208:W92–W100. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.16876CrossRefPubMed

11.

Sathianathen NJ, Omer A, Harriss E et al (2020) Negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in the prostate imaging reporting and data system era: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 78:402–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.03.048CrossRefPubMed

12.

Mazzone E, Stabile A, Pellegrino F et al (2021) 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. Eur Urol Oncol 4:697–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2020.12.004CrossRefPubMed

13.

Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E et al (2021) EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 79:243–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042CrossRefPubMed

14.

Faria R, Soares MO, Spackman E et al (2018) Optimising the diagnosis of prostate cancer in the era of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on the prostate MR imaging study (PROMIS). Eur Urol 73:23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.08.018CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Hao S, Discacciati A, Eklund M et al (2022) Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening using magnetic resonance imaging or standard biopsy based on the STHLM3-MRI study. JAMA Oncol 9:88–94. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.5252CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Qureshi AM, Makhdomi K, Stones W (2017) Prostate-specific antigen as a risk factor for skeletal metastasis in native ethnic African men with prostate cancer: a case-control study. World J Nucl Med 16:26–32. https://doi.org/10.4103/1450-1147.181150CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Lojanapiwat B, Anutrakulchai W, Chongruksut W et al (2014) Correlation and diagnostic performance of the prostate-specific antigen level with the diagnosis, aggressiveness, and bone metastasis of prostate cancer in clinical practice. Prostate Int 2:133–139. https://doi.org/10.12954/PI.14054CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Alotaibi KM (2019) Incidence of prostate cancer among patients with prostate-related urinary symptoms: a single institution series in 10 years. Urol Ann 11:135–138. https://doi.org/10.4103/UA.UA_151_18CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Ahdoot M, Wilbur AR, Reese SE et al (2020) MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 382:917–928. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1910038CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Filson CP, Natarajan S, Margolis DJA et al (2016) Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: the role of systematic and targeted biopsies. Cancer 122:884–892. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29874CrossRefPubMed

21.

Fourcade A, Payrard C, Tissot V et al (2018) The combination of targeted and systematic prostate biopsies is the best protocol for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Scand J Urol 52:174–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2018.1438509CrossRefPubMed

22.

Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R et al (2019) Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 20:100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2CrossRefPubMed

23.

Westhoff N, Baeßler B, von Hardenberg J et al (2019) Systematic prostate biopsy still matters: a comprehensive analysis of MRI/TRUS-fusion targeted prostate biopsies across different indications. Urol Oncol 37:678–687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.07.004CrossRefPubMed

24.

Tu X, Liu Z, Chang T et al (2019) Transperineal magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may perform better than transrectal route in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Genitourin Cancer 17:e860–e870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2019.05.006CrossRefPubMed

25.

Krausewitz P, Fostitsch D, Weiten R et al (2023) Current role of systematic biopsy in diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in primary combined MRI-targeted biopsy: a high-volume single-center study. World J Urol 41:19–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-04230-wCrossRefPubMed

26.

Rezapour A, Alipour V, Moradi N et al (2022) Cost-effectiveness of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis: a systematic review. Value Health Reg Issues 30:31–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2021.10.007CrossRefPubMed

27.

Dariane C, Ploussard G, Barret E et al (2023) Micro-ultrasound-guided biopsies versus systematic biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol 41:641–651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-04087-zCrossRefPubMed

28.

Klotz L, Lughezzani G, Maffei D et al (2021) Comparison of micro-ultrasound and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: a multicenter, prospective analysis. Can Urol Assoc J 15:E11–E16. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.6712CrossRefPubMed

29.

Grey ADR, Scott R, Shah B et al (2022) Multiparametric ultrasound versus multiparametric MRI to diagnose prostate cancer (CADMUS): a prospective, multicentre, paired-cohort, confirmatory study. Lancet Oncol 23:428–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00016-XCrossRefPubMed

30.

Kaneko M, Lenon MSL, Storino Ramacciotti L et al (2022) Multiparametric ultrasound of prostate: role in prostate cancer diagnosis. Ther Adv Urol 14:17562872221145624. https://doi.org/10.1177/17562872221145625CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Tokas T, Grabski B, Paul U et al (2018) A 12-year follow-up of ANNA/C-TRUS image-targeted biopsies in patients suspicious for prostate cancer. World J Urol 36:699–704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2160-zCrossRefPubMed

32.

Wang X, Xie Y, Zheng X et al (2023) A prospective multi-center randomized comparative trial evaluating outcomes of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided 12-core systematic biopsy, mpMRI-targeted 12-core biopsy, and artificial intelligence ultrasound of prostate (AIUSP) 6-core targeted biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis. World J Urol 41:653–662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-04086-0CrossRefPubMed

33.

Elkhoury FF, Felker ER, Kwan L et al (2019) Comparison of targeted vs systematic prostate biopsy in men who are biopsy naive: the prospective assessment of image registration in the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PAIREDCAP) Study. JAMA Surg 154:811–818. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2019.1734CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Park MY, Park KJ, Lim B et al (2020) Comparison of biopsy strategies for prostate biopsy according to lesion size and PSA density in MRI-directed biopsy pathway. Abdom Radiol (NY) 45:4166–4177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02667-4CrossRefPubMed

35.

Jones D, Friend C, Dreher A et al (2018) The diagnostic test accuracy of rectal examination for prostate cancer diagnosis in symptomatic patients: a systematic review. BMC Fam Pract 19:79. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-018-0765-yCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Saraçoğlu T, Unsal A, Taşkın F et al (2012) The impact of pre-procedural waiting period and anxiety level on pain perception in patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Diagn Interv Radiol 18:195–199. https://doi.org/10.4261/1305-3825.DIR.4643-11.1CrossRefPubMed

Title: Do we need MRI in all biopsy naïve patients? A multicenter cohort analysis
Authors: Philipp Krausewitz
Angelika Borkowetz
Gernot Ortner
Kira Kornienko
Mike Wenzel
Niklas Westhoff
GESRU Academics Prostate Cancer Group
Publication date: 01-12-2024
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Prostate Cancer
Prostate Cancer
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 1/2024
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-024-04780-1

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Do we need MRI in all biopsy naïve patients? A multicenter cohort analysis

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Development and validation of a clinical-radiomics model for prediction of prostate cancer: a multicenter study

Modified Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for cases with anterior tumor: a propensity score-matched analysis

Letter to the editor for the article “Does the urinary microbiome profile change after treatment of bladder cancer?”

How does artificial intelligence master urological board examinations? A comparative analysis of different Large Language Models’ accuracy and reliability in the 2022 In-Service Assessment of the European Board of Urology

Open versus robotic partial nephrectomy in obese patients: a multi-institutional propensity score-matched analysis (UroCCR 43—Robese study)

"No stone should be left unturned": The next stone composition for recurrent stone formers is unpredictable, so all stones should be sent for analysis