Magnetic Resonance Imaging‐Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Fusion Biopsy to Detect Progression in Patients with Existing Lesions on Active Surveillance for Low and Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer

Purpose: Active surveillance is an established option for men with low risk prostate cancer. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with magnetic resonance imaging‐transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy may better identify patients for active surveillance compared to systematic 12‐core biopsy due to improved risk stratification. To our knowledge the performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in following men on active surveillance with visible lesions is unknown. We evaluated multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging‐transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy to monitor men on active surveillance. Materials and Methods: This retrospective review included men from 2007 to 2015 with prostate cancer on active surveillance in whom magnetic resonance imaging visible lesions were monitored by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and fusion guided biopsy. Progression was defined by ISUP (International Society of Urological Pathology) grade group 1 to 2 and ISUP grade group 2 to 3. Significance was considered at p ≤0.05. Results: A total of 166 patients on active surveillance with 2 or more fusion guided biopsies were included in analysis. Mean followup was 25.5 months. Of the patients 29.5% had pathological progression. Targeted biopsy alone identified 44.9% of patients who progressed compared to 30.6% identified by systematic 12‐core biopsy alone (p = 0.03). Fusion guided biopsy detected 26% more cases of pathological progression on surveillance biopsy compared to systematic 12‐core biopsy. Progression on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was the sole predictor of pathological progression at surveillance biopsy (p = 0.013). Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging progression in the entire cohort had 81% negative predictive value, 35% positive predictive value, 77.6% sensitivity and 40.5% specificity in detecting pathological progression. Conclusions: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging progression predicts the risk of pathological progression. Patients with stable multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings have a low rate of progression. Incorporating fusion guided biopsy in active surveillance nearly doubled our detection of pathological progression compared to systematic 12‐core biopsy.

[1]  Danny Vesprini,et al.  Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. , 2015, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[2]  M. Roobol,et al.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of clinicopathologic variables and biomarkers for risk stratification. , 2015, European urology.

[3]  P. Choyke,et al.  Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer , 2013, Cancer.

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

[5]  P. Choyke,et al.  Use of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. , 2015, Urologic oncology.

[6]  I. Tuerk,et al.  Comparing the Gleason prostate biopsy and Gleason prostatectomy grading system: the Lahey Clinic Medical Center experience and an international meta-analysis. , 2008, European urology.

[7]  P. Pinto,et al.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Prostate Biopsy: Review of Technology, Techniques, and Outcomes , 2016, Current Urology Reports.

[8]  A. Billis Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience , 2011 .

[9]  G. Andriole Active Surveillance for the Management of Prostate Cancer in a Contemporary Cohort: Dall'Era MA, Konety BR, Cowan JE, et al (Univ of California at San Francisco; et al) Cancer 112:2664-2670, 2008 § , 2012 .

[10]  P. Choyke,et al.  Utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging suspicion levels for detecting prostate cancer. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[11]  A. Villers,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. , 2015, European urology.

[12]  J. Hanley,et al.  Factors influencing disease progression of prostate cancer under active surveillance: a McGill University Health Center cohort , 2014, BJU international.

[13]  D. Margolis,et al.  Serial Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: Incremental Value. , 2016, The Journal of urology.

[14]  J. Epstein,et al.  Expanded criteria to identify men eligible for active surveillance of low risk prostate cancer at Johns Hopkins: a preliminary analysis. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[15]  Shyam Natarajan,et al.  Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion device. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[16]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[17]  Anna Kettermann,et al.  Prostate-specific antigen kinetics during follow-up are an unreliable trigger for intervention in a prostate cancer surveillance program. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[18]  A. Sidana,et al.  Prostate Cancer Diagnosis on Repeat Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy of Benign Lesions: Recommendations for Repeat Sampling. , 2016, The Journal of urology.

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

[20]  Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. , 2008, Annals of internal medicine.

[21]  B. Trock,et al.  Pathological outcomes in men with low risk and very low risk prostate cancer: implications on the practice of active surveillance. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[22]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Prostate Cancer: Interobserver Agreement and Accuracy with the Revised Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System at Multiparametric MR Imaging. , 2015, Radiology.

[23]  P. Choyke,et al.  Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound (MRI‐US) fusion‐guided prostate biopsies obtained from axial and sagittal approaches , 2015, BJU international.

[24]  D. Margolis,et al.  Targeted prostate biopsy in select men for active surveillance: do the Epstein criteria still apply? , 2014, The Journal of urology.

[25]  P. Pinto,et al.  Optimizing Patient Population for MP-MRI and Fusion Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Detection , 2015, Current Urology Reports.

[26]  G. Pond,et al.  A prospective comparison of MRI‐US fused targeted biopsy versus systematic ultrasound‐guided biopsy for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in patients on active surveillance , 2015, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[27]  P. Choyke,et al.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Transrectal Ultrasonography Fusion Prostate Biopsy Significantly Outperforms Systematic 12-Core Biopsy for Prediction of Total Magnetic Resonance Imaging Tumor Volume in Active Surveillance Patients. , 2015, Journal of endourology.

[28]  W. Lowrance,et al.  Gleason 6 Prostate Cancer: Translating Biology into Population Health. , 2015, The Journal of urology.

[29]  M. Cooperberg,et al.  UC San Francisco UC San Francisco Previously Published Works Title Active surveillance for prostate cancer : Progress and promise , 2011 .

[30]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Correlation of magnetic resonance imaging tumor volume with histopathology. , 2012, The Journal of urology.