Reduction of MRI-targeted biopsies in men with low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance by stratifying to PI-RADS and PSA-density, with different thresholds for significant disease

Background The fear of undergrading prostate cancer (PCa) in men on active surveillance (AS) have led to strict criteria for monitoring, which have resulted in good long-term cancer-specific survival, proving the safety of this approach. Reducing undergrading, MRI-targeted biopsies are increasingly used in men with low-risk disease despite their undefined role yet. The objective of this study is to investigate the rate of upgrading using MRI-targeted biopsies in men with low-risk disease on AS, stratified on the basis of PI-RADS and PSA-density, with the aim to reduce potential unnecessary repeat biopsy procedures. Methods A total of 331 men were prospectively enrolled following the MRI-PRIAS protocol. MR imaging was according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADSv2) guidelines. Suspicious MRI lesions (PI-RADS 3–5) were additionally targeted by MRI-TRUS fusion biopsies. Outcome measure was upgrading to Gleason score (GS) ≥3+4 with MRI-targeted biopsies, stratified for PI-RADS and PSA-density. Results In total, 25% (82/331) of men on AS showed upgrading from GS 3+3. Only 3% (11/331) was upgraded to GS ≥8. In 60% (198/331) a suspicious MRI lesion was identified, but in only 41% (82/198) of men upgrading was confirmed. PI-RADS 3, 4 and 5 categorized index lesions, showed upgrading in 30%, 34% and 66% of men, respectively. Stratification to PI-RADS 4–5, instead of PI-RADS 3–5, would have missed a small number of high volume Gleason 4 PCa in PI-RADS 3 category. However, further stratification into PI-RADS 3 lesions and PSA-density <0.15 ng/mL2 could result in a safe targeted biopsy reduction of 36% in this category, without missing any upgrades. Conclusions Stratification with the combination of PI-RADS and PSA-density may reduce unnecessary additional MRI biopsy testing. Overall, the high rate of detected upgrading in men on AS may result in an unintended tightening of continuing in AS. Since patients, included under current AS criteria showed extremely favorable outcome, there might be no need to further restrict continuing on AS with MRI and targeted biopsies.

[1]  M. Roobol,et al.  Risk‐stratification based on magnetic resonance imaging and prostate‐specific antigen density may reduce unnecessary follow‐up biopsy procedures in men on active surveillance for low‐risk prostate cancer , 2017, BJU international.

[2]  Silvia D. Chang,et al.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer in patients with prior negative biopsy results. , 2015, Urologic oncology.

[3]  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.

[4]  A. Kishan,et al.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer improves Gleason score assessment in favorable risk prostate cancer. , 2015, Practical radiation oncology.

[5]  S. Rais-Bahrami,et al.  Factors predicting prostate cancer upgrading on magnetic resonance imaging–targeted biopsy in an active surveillance population , 2017, Cancer.

[6]  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.

[7]  L. Klotz,et al.  Active Surveillance for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer , 2016, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases.

[8]  H. Ahmed,et al.  Prostate Cancer Risk Inflation as a Consequence of Image-targeted Biopsy of the Prostate: A Computer Simulation Study , 2014, European urology.

[9]  Ronald C. Chen,et al.  Active Surveillance for the Management of Localized Prostate Cancer (Cancer Care Ontario Guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Endorsement. , 2016, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[10]  D. Margolis,et al.  Targeted Biopsy to Detect Gleason Score Upgrading during Active Surveillance for Men with Low versus Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer , 2017, The Journal of urology.

[11]  A. Auvinen,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening: a simulation study based on ERSPC data. , 2015, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[12]  Mufaddal Mamawala,et al.  Intermediate and Longer-Term Outcomes From a Prospective Active-Surveillance Program for Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer. , 2015, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[13]  Hilla Peretz,et al.  Ju n 20 03 Schrödinger ’ s Cat : The rules of engagement , 2003 .

[14]  M. Roethke,et al.  Combined Clinical Parameters and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Advanced Risk Modeling of Prostate Cancer-Patient-tailored Risk Stratification Can Reduce Unnecessary Biopsies. , 2017, European urology.

[15]  V. Laudone,et al.  The Efficacy of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy in Risk Classification for Patients with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance. , 2016, The Journal of urology.

[16]  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.

[17]  S. Fosså,et al.  Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population‐based study , 2009, BJU international.

[18]  A. Rosenkrantz,et al.  Role of prostate magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance , 2017, Translational andrology and urology.

[19]  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.

[20]  K. Fareed,et al.  Intermediate‐Term Outcomes for Men with Very Low/Low and Intermediate/High Risk Prostate Cancer Managed by Active Surveillance , 2017, The Journal of urology.

[21]  Liying Zhang,et al.  Metastatic Prostate Cancer in Men Initially Treated with Active Surveillance. , 2016, The Journal of urology.

[22]  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.

[23]  A. Doble,et al.  The influence of prostate‐specific antigen density on positive and negative predictive values of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect Gleason score 7–10 prostate cancer in a repeat biopsy setting , 2017, BJU international.

[24]  H. Hricak,et al.  The performance of PI-RADSv2 and quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient for predicting confirmatory prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of prostate cancer , 2017, Abdominal Radiology.

[25]  W. Kassouf,et al.  Relationship between initial PSA density with future PSA kinetics and repeat biopsies in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance , 2010, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases.

[26]  David Gillatt,et al.  10-Year Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

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

[28]  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.

[29]  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.

[30]  Neil Fleshner,et al.  Feasibility study: watchful waiting for localized low to intermediate grade prostate carcinoma with selective delayed intervention based on prostate specific antigen, histological and/or clinical progression. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[31]  O. Brawley,et al.  Trends in prostate cancer in the United States. , 2012, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.

[32]  Hadley Wickham,et al.  ggplot2 - Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (2nd Edition) , 2017 .

[33]  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.

[34]  Janet E Cowan,et al.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy During Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance. , 2017, European urology.

[35]  W. Nahas,et al.  Value of 3‐Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy for improved risk stratification in patients considered for active surveillance , 2017, BJU international.

[36]  C. Moore,et al.  Role of MRI in low-risk prostate cancer: finding the wolf in sheep's clothing or the sheep in wolf's clothing? , 2017, Current opinion in urology.

[37]  P. Carroll,et al.  Reporting Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: The PRECISE Recommendations-A Report of a European School of Oncology Task Force. , 2017, European urology.

[38]  S. Taneja,et al.  Re: Cost-Effectiveness of Prostate Cancer Screening: A Simulation Study Based on ERSPC Data. , 2015, The Journal of urology.

[39]  R. V. D. van den Bergh,et al.  Prospective validation of active surveillance in prostate cancer: the PRIAS study. , 2007, European urology.

[40]  M. Roethke,et al.  Further reduction of disqualification rates by additional MRI-targeted biopsy with transperineal saturation biopsy compared with standard 12-core systematic biopsies for the selection of prostate cancer patients for active surveillance , 2016, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases.

[41]  T. H. van der Kwast,et al.  Prevalence of prostate cancer on autopsy: cross-sectional study on unscreened Caucasian and Asian men. , 2013, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[42]  L. Klotz.  Active Surveillance for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer , 2016, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases.

[43]  M. Roobol,et al.  Risk-based Patient Selection for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsy after Negative Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Random Biopsy Avoids Unnecessary Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scans. , 2016, European urology.

[44]  D. Nieboer,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2015, European urology.

[45]  Shyam Natarajan,et al.  Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance‐ultrasound fusion biopsy: The role of systematic and targeted biopsies , 2016, Cancer.

[46]  A. Billis.  Radical prostatectomy findings in patients in whom active surveillance of prostate cancer fails , 2009 .