Multiparametric MRI followed by targeted prostate biopsy for men with suspected prostate cancer: a clinical decision analysis

Objective To compare the diagnostic outcomes of the current approach of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy in men with suspected prostate cancer to an alternative approach using multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), followed by MRI-targeted biopsy if positive. Design Clinical decision analysis was used to synthesise data from recently emerging evidence in a format that is relevant for clinical decision making. Population A hypothetical cohort of 1000 men with suspected prostate cancer. Interventions mpMRI and, if positive, MRI-targeted biopsy compared with TRUS-guided biopsy in all men. Outcome measures We report the number of men expected to undergo a biopsy as well as the numbers of correctly identified patients with or without prostate cancer. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was carried out using Monte Carlo simulation to explore the impact of statistical uncertainty in the diagnostic parameters. Results In 1000 men, mpMRI followed by MRI-targeted biopsy ‘clinically dominates’ TRUS-guided biopsy as it results in fewer expected biopsies (600 vs 1000), more men being correctly identified as having clinically significant cancer (320 vs 250), and fewer men being falsely identified (20 vs 50). The mpMRI-based strategy dominated TRUS-guided biopsy in 86% of the simulations in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Conclusions Our analysis suggests that mpMRI followed by MRI-targeted biopsy is likely to result in fewer and better biopsies than TRUS-guided biopsy. Future research in prostate cancer should focus on providing precise estimates of key diagnostic parameters.

[1]  M. Cowie National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. , 2015, European heart journal.

[2]  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.

[3]  M. Stifelman,et al.  A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial. , 2014, European urology.

[4]  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.

[5]  Jurgen J Fütterer,et al.  Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. , 2014, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[6]  H. Ahmed,et al.  Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Management and Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: Current Applications and Strategies , 2014, Current Urology Reports.

[7]  L. Lipshultz,et al.  Re: A Prospective, Blinded Comparison of Magnetic Resonance (MR) Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion and Visual Estimation in the Performance of MR-targeted Prostate Biopsy: The PROFUS Trial , 2014 .

[8]  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.

[9]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. , 2013, European urology.

[10]  M. Emberton Has magnetic resonance-guided biopsy of the prostate become the standard of care? , 2013, European urology.

[11]  Heinz-Peter Schlemmer,et al.  Critical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging targeted, transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal fusion biopsy for detection of prostate cancer. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[12]  J. Fütterer,et al.  Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. , 2013, European urology.

[13]  C Fraser,et al.  The diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance spectroscopy and enhanced magnetic resonance imaging techniques in aiding the localisation of prostate abnormalities for biopsy: a systematic review and economic evaluation. , 2013, Health technology assessment.

[14]  H. Ahmed,et al.  Transperineal magnetic resonance image targeted prostate biopsy versus transperineal template prostate biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[15]  Mark Emberton,et al.  Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. , 2013, European urology.

[16]  D. Hawkes,et al.  The accuracy of different biopsy strategies for the detection of clinically important prostate cancer: a computer simulation. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[17]  B. K. Park,et al.  Prospective evaluation of 3-T MRI performed before initial transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with high prostate-specific antigen and no previous biopsy. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[18]  G. Haber,et al.  Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging‐targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection , 2011, BJU international.

[19]  Yipeng Hu,et al.  Characterizing clinically significant prostate cancer using template prostate mapping biopsy. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[20]  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.

[21]  Laura Esserman,et al.  Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer. , 2009, JAMA.

[22]  Theodore L. DeWeese,et al.  Localized Prostate Cancer , 2007 .

[23]  Susanne Hempel,et al.  Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[24]  M Bolla,et al.  EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. , 2001, European urology.

[25]  David Moher,et al.  The STARD Statement for Reporting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: Explanation and Elaboration , 2003, Annals of Internal Medicine [serial online].

[26]  F. Khan,et al.  TRANSRECTAL ULTRASOUND GUIDED BIOPSY OF THE PROSTATE , 1998 .

[27]  M W Kattan,et al.  Distinguishing clinically important from unimportant prostate cancers before treatment: value of systematic biopsies. , 1996, The Journal of urology.

[28]  P. Walsh,et al.  Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. , 1994, JAMA.

[29]  A S Whittemore,et al.  Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer , 1993, Cancer.