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.

BACKGROUND There is growing interest to implement multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and MR-guided biopsy (MRGB) for biopsy-naïve men with suspected prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE Primary objective was to compare and evaluate an MRI pathway and a transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUSGB) pathway in biopsy-naïve men with prostate-specific antigen levels of ≥3ng/ml. DESIGN, SETTING, AND POPULATION A prospective, multicenter, powered, comparative effectiveness study included 626 biopsy-naïve patients (from February 2015 to February 2018). INTERVENTION All patients underwent prebiopsy mpMRI followed by systematic TRUSGB. Men with suspicious lesions on mpMRI also underwent MRGB prior to TRUSGB. MRGB was performed using the in-bore approach. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined as grade group ≥2 (Gleason score ≥3+4) in any core. The main secondary objectives were the number of men who could avoid biopsy after nonsuspicious mpMRI, the number of biopsy cores taken, and oncologic follow-up. Differences in proportions were tested using McNemar's test with adjusted Wald confidence intervals for differences of proportions with matched pairs. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS The MRI pathway detected csPCa in 159/626 (25%) patients and insignificant prostate cancer (insignPCa) in 88/626 patients (14%). TRUSGB detected csPCa in 146/626 patients (23%) and insignPCa in 155/626 patients (25%). Relative sensitivity of the MRI pathway versus the TRUSGB pathway was 1.09 for csPCa (p=0.17) and 0.57 for insignPCa (p<0.0001). The total number of biopsy cores reduced from 7512 to 849 (-89%). The MRI pathway enabled biopsy avoidance in 309/626 (49%) patients due to nonsuspicious mpMRI. Immediate TRUSGB detected csPCa in only 3% (10/309) of these patients, increasing to 4% (13/309) with 1-yr follow-up. At the same time, TRUSGB would overdetect insignPCa in 20% (63/309). "Focal saturation" by four additional perilesional cores to MRGB improved the detection of csPCa in 21/317 (7%) patients. Compared with the literature, our proportion of nonsuspicious mpMRI cases is significantly higher (27-36% vs 49%) and that of equivocal cases is lower (15-28% vs 6%). This is probably due to the high-quality standard in this study. Therefore, a limitation is the duplication of these results in less experienced centers. CONCLUSIONS In biopsy-naïve men, the MRI pathway compared with the TRUSGB pathway results in an identical detection rate of csPCa, with significantly fewer insignPCa cases. In this high-quality standard study, almost half of men have nonsuspicious MRI, which is higher compared with other studies. Not performing TRUS biopsy is at the cost of missing csPCa only in 4%. PATIENT SUMMARY We compared magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with MRI-guided biopsy against standard transrectal ultrasound biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve men. Our results show that patients can benefit from MRI because biopsy may be omitted in half of men, and fewer indolent cancers are detected, without compromising the detection of harmful disease. Men also need fewer needles to make a diagnosis.

[1]  Lorenzo Farina,et al.  Prostate cancer screening research can benefit from network medicine: an emerging awareness , 2020, npj Systems Biology and Applications.

[2]  Saila Kauppila,et al.  Prebiopsy Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis in Biopsy-naive Men with Suspected Prostate Cancer Based on Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen Values: Results from a Randomized Prospective Blinded Controlled Trial. , 2016, European urology.

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

[4]  P. Acher,et al.  Clinical utility and cost modelling of the phi test to triage referrals into image-based diagnostic services for suspected prostate cancer: the PRIM (Phi to RefIne Mri) study , 2020, BMC Medicine.

[5]  A. L. Linares Quevedo,et al.  Prospective nonrandomized study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy to magnetic resonance imaging with subsequent MRI-guided biopsy in biopsy-naïve patients. , 2017, Minerva urologica e nefrologica = The Italian journal of urology and nephrology.

[6]  S. Dason,et al.  A novel biparametric magnetic resonance imaging sequence provides a more efficient and similarly efficacious method of risk stratifying men clinically suspected of having prostate cancer. , 2019, Translational andrology and urology.

[7]  Maarten de Rooij,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR-guided targeted biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in diagnosing prostate cancer: a modelling study from a health care perspective. , 2014, European urology.

[8]  J. Hugosson,et al.  Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Screening: A Pilot Study Within the Göteborg Randomised Screening Trial. , 2016, European urology.

[9]  Christina Hulsbergen-van de Kaa,et al.  Results of Targeted Biopsy in Men with Magnetic Resonance Imaging Lesions Classified Equivocal, Likely or Highly Likely to Be Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. , 2017, European urology.

[10]  K. Gwet Computing inter-rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high agreement. , 2008, The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology.

[11]  H. G. van der Poel,et al.  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. , 2017, European urology.

[12]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of prostate cancer , 2016, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[13]  A. D'Amico,et al.  American Cancer Society Guideline for the Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: Update 2010 , 2010, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[14]  N. Lumen,et al.  What kind of prostate cancers do we miss on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? , 2016, European Radiology.

[15]  F. Montorsi,et al.  Active Surveillance for Low-risk Prostate Cancer: The European Association of Urology Position in 2018. , 2018, European urology.

[16]  Katarzyna J Macura,et al.  Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 Guidelines for Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Recommendations for Use. , 2016, European urology.

[17]  B. Hadaschik,et al.  Multicentre evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging supported transperineal prostate biopsy in biopsy‐naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer , 2018, BJU international.

[18]  Yair Lotan,et al.  Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. , 2013, European urology.

[19]  B. Delahunt,et al.  The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System , 2015, The American journal of surgical pathology.

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

[21]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Steering Committee: PI-RADS v2 Status Update and Future Directions. , 2019, European urology.

[22]  A. Ouzzane,et al.  MRI in addition to or as a substitute for prostate biopsy: the clinician's point of view. , 2012, Diagnostic and interventional imaging.

[23]  F. Schröder,et al.  Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. , 2014, European urology.

[24]  Katarzyna J Macura,et al.  Reply to Erik Rud and Eduard Baco's Letter to the Editor re: Re: Jeffrey C. Weinreb, Jelle O. Barentsz, Peter L. Choyke, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 2016;69:16-40. , 2016, European urology.

[25]  D. Margolis,et al.  PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. , 2016, European urology.

[26]  H. G. van der Poel,et al.  EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. , 2017, European urology.

[27]  R. Faletti,et al.  Diagnostic Pathway with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Standard Pathway: Results from a Randomized Prospective Study in Biopsy-naïve Patients with Suspected Prostate Cancer. , 2017, European urology.

[28]  T. H. van der Kwast,et al.  EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. , 2014, European urology.

[29]  Marta O. Soares,et al.  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) , 2018, European urology.

[30]  H. Merisaari,et al.  Prediction of prostate cancer aggressiveness using 18F-Fluciclovine (FACBC) PET and multisequence multiparametric MRI , 2020, Scientific Reports.

[31]  L. Hooft,et al.  Comparing Three Different Techniques for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsies: A Systematic Review of In-bore versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound fusion versus Cognitive Registration. Is There a Preferred Technique? , 2017, European urology.

[32]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. , 2015, JAMA.

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

[34]  A. Sidana,et al.  Risk of Upgrading from Prostate Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy Pathology—Does Saturation Biopsy of Index Lesion during Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging‐Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy Help? , 2017, The Journal of urology.

[35]  B. Bodelle,et al.  Complication Rates After TRUS Guided Transrectal Systematic and MRI-Targeted Prostate Biopsies in a High-Risk Region for Antibiotic Resistances , 2020, Frontiers in Surgery.

[36]  F. Giganti,et al.  MRI in prostate cancer diagnosis: do we need to add standard sampling? A review of the last 5 years , 2018, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases.

[37]  C. Catalano,et al.  Negative Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer: What's Next? , 2018, European urology.

[38]  I. Balslev,et al.  Assessment of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer in Biopsy-Naive Men , 2018, JAMA network open.