Oncology: Prostate/Testis/Penis/Urethra Variation in Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsy Outcomes in Asian American Men: A Multicenter Study

PURPOSE Asian-American men have distinctly different prostate cancer epidemiology compared to other men. The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy for elevated PSA in this population has not been assessed. We sought to define imaging and targeted biopsy outcomes in Asian-American men compared to other men. MATERIALS AND METHODS A multicenter, prospective cohort of men who underwent magnetic resonance imaging-targeted with systematic biopsy for elevated prostate specific antigen was accrued. Outcome of interest was diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason Grade Group≥2), stratified by PI-RADS score and history of negative biopsy. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the effect of Asian-American race on cancer detection. RESULTS Of 2,571 men, 275 (11%) were Asian-American. Clinically significant prostate cancer was detected in 37% of Asian-American men compared to 48% in men of other races (p<0.001). Asian-American men were also less likely to be diagnosed with grade group 1 cancer (12% vs 18%, p=0.007). Additionally, there was significantly lower detection of significant cancer for PIRADS 3 in Asian-Americans vs. other races (12% vs. 21%, p=0.032). In adjusted analysis, Asian-Americans were less likely to be diagnosed with both significant cancer (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.42-0.79, p<0.001) and grade group 1 cancer (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38-0.84, p=0.005) compared to non-Asians. CONCLUSIONS Asian-Americans are less likely to be diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer on targeted biopsy, illustrating different performance of PI-RADS in this population. Conventional risk assessment tools should be modified when selecting Asian-American men for biopsy.

[1]  V. Panebianco,et al.  Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 Category Cases at Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. , 2020, European urology focus.

[2]  D. Margolis,et al.  Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. , 2019, European urology.

[3]  Stephanie A. Bien,et al.  Genetic analyses of diverse populations improves discovery for complex traits , 2019, Nature.

[4]  F. Montorsi,et al.  Assessing the Clinical Value of Positive Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Young Men with a Suspicion of Prostate Cancer. , 2019, European urology oncology.

[5]  D. Nieboer,et al.  A Multicentre Evaluation of the Role of the Prostate Health Index (PHI) in Regions with Differing Prevalence of Prostate Cancer: Adjustment of PHI Reference Ranges is Needed for European and Asian Settings. , 2019, European urology.

[6]  D. Margolis,et al.  The Learning Curve for Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-guided Prostate Biopsy. , 2019, European urology oncology.

[7]  W. Rogers,et al.  No Surgical Innovation Without Evaluation: Evolution and Further Development of the IDEAL Framework and Recommendations , 2019, Annals of surgery.

[8]  A. Jemal,et al.  Cancer statistics, 2019 , 2019, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[9]  Laurent Lemaitre,et al.  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. , 2019, The Lancet. Oncology.

[10]  Harold Evelyn Taitt Global Trends and Prostate Cancer: A Review of Incidence, Detection, and Mortality as Influenced by Race, Ethnicity, and Geographic Location , 2018, American journal of men's health.

[11]  Douglas K Owens,et al.  Screening for Prostate Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement , 2018, JAMA.

[12]  Prasad R. Shankar,et al.  Impact of Clinical History on Maximum PI-RADS Version 2 Score: A Six-Reader 120-Case Sham History Retrospective Evaluation. , 2018, Radiology.

[13]  D. Margolis,et al.  MRI‐Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate‐Cancer Diagnosis , 2018, The New England journal of medicine.

[14]  Richard E. Fan,et al.  Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Interpretation Varies Substantially Across Radiologists. , 2017, European urology focus.

[15]  Jim C Hu,et al.  Indications, Utilization and Complications Following Prostate Biopsy: New York State Analysis , 2017, The Journal of urology.

[16]  M. Parmar,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confi rmatory study , 2018 .

[17]  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.

[18]  Cher Heng Tan,et al.  MRI Fusion-Targeted Transrectal Prostate Biopsy and the Role of Prostate-Specific Antigen Density and Prostate Health Index for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Southeast Asian Men. , 2017, Journal of endourology.

[19]  A. Fenster,et al.  Comparison of prostate MRI-3D transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy for first-time and repeat biopsy patients with previous atypical small acinar proliferation. , 2016, Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada.

[20]  T. Choueiri,et al.  Association Between Older Age and Increasing Gleason Score. , 2015, Clinical genitourinary cancer.

[21]  Sasha Colby,et al.  Projections of the Size and Composition of the U.S. Population: 2014 to 2060. Population Estimates and Projections. Current Population Reports. P25-1143. , 2015 .

[22]  T. Tammela,et al.  Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up , 2014, The Lancet.

[23]  S. Byun,et al.  Mobile Application-Based Seoul National University Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator: Development, Validation, and Comparative Analysis with Two Western Risk Calculators in Korean Men , 2014, PloS one.

[24]  H Ballentine Carter,et al.  Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[25]  Y. Kitagawa,et al.  Clinical outcomes of prostate cancer patients detected by prostate‐specific antigen‐based population screening in Kanazawa City, Japan , 2011, International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association.

[26]  Ju-Sheng Zheng,et al.  Green Tea and Black Tea Consumption and Prostate Cancer Risk: An Exploratory Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies , 2011, Nutrition and cancer.

[27]  D. Coleman Projections of the ethnic minority populations of the United Kingdom 2006-2056. , 2010, Population and development review.

[28]  Yusuke Nakamura,et al.  Genome-wide association study identifies five new susceptibility loci for prostate cancer in the Japanese population , 2010, Nature Genetics.

[29]  E. Spitznagel,et al.  Soy consumption and prostate cancer risk in men: a revisit of a meta-analysis. , 2009, The American journal of clinical nutrition.

[30]  Diane S. Lauderdale,et al.  Asian American ethnic identification by surname , 2000 .

[31]  N. Dubrawsky Cancer statistics , 1989, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.