Why and Where do We Miss Significant Prostate Cancer with Multi-parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging followed by Magnetic Resonance-guided and Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Men?

BACKGROUND Knowledge of significant prostate (sPCa) locations being missed with magnetic resonance (MR)- and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy (Bx) may help to improve these techniques. OBJECTIVE To identify the location of sPCa lesions being missed with MR- and TRUS-Bx. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In a referral center, 223 consecutive Bx-naive men with elevated prostate specific antigen level and/or abnormal digital rectal examination were included. Histopathologically-proven cancer locations, Gleason score, and tumor length were determined. INTERVENTION All patients underwent multi-parametric MRI and 12-core systematic TRUS-Bx. MR-Bx was performed in all patients with suspicion of PCa on multi-parametric MRI (n=142). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Cancer locations were compared between MR- and TRUS-Bx. Proportions were expressed as percentages, and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS In total, 191 lesions were found in 108 patients with sPCa. From these lesion 74% (141/191) were defined as sPCa on either MR- or TRUS-Bx. MR-Bx detected 74% (105/141) of these lesions and 61% (86/141) with TRUS-Bx. TRUS-Bx detected more lesions compared with MR-Bx (140 vs 109). However, these lesions were often low risk (39%). Significant lesions missed with MR-Bx most often had involvement of dorsolateral (58%) and apical (37%) segments and missed segments with TRUS-Bx were located anteriorly (79%), anterior midprostate (50%), and anterior apex (23%). CONCLUSIONS Both techniques have difficulties in detecting apical lesions. MR-Bx most often missed cancer with involvement of the dorsolateral part (58%) and TRUS-Bx with involvement of the anterior part (79%). PATIENT SUMMARY Both biopsy techniques miss cancer in specific locations within the prostate. Identification of these lesions may help to improve these techniques.

[1]  H. Ahmed,et al.  Clinical utility of transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy of the prostate after negative magnetic resonance imaging-guided transrectal biopsy. , 2015, Urologic oncology.

[2]  Ruth Etzioni,et al.  Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. , 2014, European urology.

[3]  Andrew B Rosenkrantz,et al.  Prostate MRI can reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. , 2015, Academic radiology.

[4]  Samir S Taneja,et al.  Multiparametric MRI and targeted prostate biopsy: Improvements in cancer detection, localization, and risk assessment , 2016, Central European journal of urology.

[5]  L. Kavoussi,et al.  In patients with a previous negative prostate biopsy and a suspicious lesion on magnetic resonance imaging, is a 12‐core biopsy still necessary in addition to a targeted biopsy? , 2015, BJU international.

[6]  M Emberton,et al.  Performance of multiparametric MRI in men at risk of prostate cancer before the first biopsy: a paired validating cohort study using template prostate mapping biopsies as the reference standard , 2013, Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Disease.

[7]  D. Finley,et al.  Tumors of the Anterior Prostate: Implications for Diagnosis and Treatment. , 2015, Urology.

[8]  Rodolfo Montironi,et al.  Contemporary Role of Systematic Prostate Biopsies: Indications, Techniques, and Implications for Patient Care , 2013 .

[9]  J. Witjes,et al.  Use of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) for Prostate Cancer Detection with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Diagnostic Meta-analysis. , 2015, European urology.

[10]  Rodolfo Montironi,et al.  The contemporary concept of significant versus insignificant prostate cancer , 2011 .

[11]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Thirty-Two-Channel Coil 3T Magnetic Resonance-Guided Biopsies of Prostate Tumor Suspicious Regions Identified on Multimodality 3T Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Technique and Feasibility , 2008, Investigative radiology.

[12]  U. Capitanio,et al.  Random biopsy: when, how many and where to take the cores? , 2014, World Journal of Urology.

[13]  B. Carey,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. , 2011, European urology.

[14]  G. Andriole,et al.  Risk-based prostate cancer screening. , 2012, European urology.

[15]  M. Jordá,et al.  Prostate sampling by 12-core biopsy: comparison of the biopsy results with tumor location in prostatectomy specimens. , 2012, Urology.

[16]  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.

[17]  Zhiyong Liang,et al.  Transperineal template‐guided prostate biopsy: 10 years of experience , 2016, BJU international.

[18]  J. Fütterer,et al.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012 , 2012, European Radiology.

[19]  J. Fütterer,et al.  Can Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Be Detected with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging? A Systematic Review of the Literature. , 2015, European urology.

[20]  Andrew B Rosenkrantz,et al.  Radiologist, be aware: ten pitfalls that confound the interpretation of multiparametric prostate MRI. , 2014, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[21]  W. Butler,et al.  Incidence and pathological features of prostate cancer detected on transperineal template guided mapping biopsy after negative transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[22]  A. Rosenkrantz,et al.  Prostate cancer: top places where tumors hide on multiparametric MRI. , 2015, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[23]  K. Fareed,et al.  Importance of additional "extreme" anterior apical needle biopsies in the initial detection of prostate cancer. , 2010, Urology.

[24]  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.

[25]  A Hayen,et al.  The Diagnostic Performance of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Detect Significant Prostate Cancer. , 2016, The Journal of urology.

[26]  E. Barret,et al.  Transperineal template‐guided mapping biopsy of the prostate , 2015, International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association.

[27]  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.

[28]  David Y. Lu,et al.  Characteristics of Detected and Missed Prostate Cancer Foci on 3-T Multiparametric MRI Using an Endorectal Coil Correlated With Whole-Mount Thin-Section Histopathology. , 2015, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.