Factors predicting transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic prostate biopsy failure

Objectives: To determine the factors that predict the failure of systematic prostate biopsy by examining the clinical, laboratory, and radiological parameters of patients for whom prostate cancer was detected by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy but not by systematic biopsy. Methods: Patients were included in this study if they had undergone combined targeted and systematic biopsy and had cancer detected in the targeted biopsy. They were biopsy-naive patients and had lesions with a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) score ≥ 3 in the peripheral zone on MRI. The clinical, biochemical, and radiological findings of the groups with and without cancer detected in the systematic biopsy were compared. Results: A total of 100 patients had an index lesion in the peripheral zone and cancer detected by MRI-targeted biopsy. In 43 (43%) of the patients, no cancer was detected in the systematic biopsy, whereas it was detected in the other 57 (57%). Statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of prostate volume and PSA density (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). Moreover, the findings of univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses indicated that prostate volume and lesion size are independent predictors of systematic biopsy failure. Conclusions: The success of systematic biopsy may be lower in patients with high prostate volume and low peripheral zone index lesion size.

[1]  Henk G van der Poel,et al.  EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part II-2020 Update: Treatment of Relapsing and Metastatic Prostate Cancer. , 2020, European urology.

[2]  A. Erden,et al.  Effect of lesion diameter and prostate volume on prostate cancer detection rate of magnetic resonance imaging: Transrectal-ultrasonography-guided fusion biopsies using cognitive targeting. , 2020, Turkish journal of urology.

[3]  Jeong Kon Kim,et al.  Comparison of biopsy strategies for prostate biopsy according to lesion size and PSA density in MRI-directed biopsy pathway , 2020, Abdominal Radiology.

[4]  Martin Eklund,et al.  Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density in the diagnostic algorithm of prostate cancer , 2017, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases.

[5]  E. Yürük,et al.  Does the prostate volume always effect cancer detection rate in prostate biopsy? Additional role of prostate-specific antigen levels: A retrospective analysis of 2079 patients. , 2018, Turkish journal of urology.

[6]  T. Miyagawa,et al.  Combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI‐RADS) score and prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) density predicts biopsy outcome in prostate biopsy naïve patients , 2017, BJU international.

[7]  Mohammad Hassan Murad,et al.  Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA Guideline. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[8]  Stephan E Maier,et al.  Multiparametric MRI of prostate cancer: An update on state‐of‐the‐art techniques and their performance in detecting and localizing prostate cancer , 2013, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[9]  M. Roobol,et al.  Infectious complications and hospital admissions after prostate biopsy in a European randomized trial. , 2012, European urology.

[10]  J. Fütterer,et al.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012 , 2012, European Radiology.

[11]  Chris Metcalfe,et al.  Short term outcomes of prostate biopsy in men tested for cancer by prostate specific antigen: prospective evaluation within ProtecT study , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[12]  C. Catalano,et al.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging vs. standard care in men being evaluated for prostate cancer: a randomized study. , 2015, Urologic oncology.