Systematic versus Targeted Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion Prostate Biopsy among Men with Visible Lesions

Purpose: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-ultrasound (US) fusion-guided biopsy may improve prostate cancer (PCa) detection and reduce grade misclassification. We compared PCa detection rates on systematic, magnetic resonance imaging-targeted, and combined biopsy with evaluation of important subgroups. Materials and Methods: Men with clinical suspicion of harboring PCa from 2 institutions with visible Prostate Imaging–Reporting and Data System (PI-RADSTMv2) lesions receiving mpMRI-US fusion-guided prostate biopsy were included (2015–2020). Detection of PCa was categorized by grade group (GG). Clinically-significant PCa (csPCa) was defined as ≥GG2. Patients were stratified by biopsy setting and PI-RADS. Results: Of 1,236 patients (647 biopsy-naïve) included, 626 (50.6%) harbored PCa and 412 (33.3%) had csPCa on combined biopsy. Detection of csPCa was 27.9% vs 23.3% (+4.6%) and GG1 PCa was 11.3% vs 17.8% (−6.5%) for targeted vs systematic cores. Benefit in csPCa detection was higher in the prior negative than biopsy-naïve setting (+7.8% [p <0.0001] vs +1.7% [p=0.3]) while reduction in GG1 PCa detection remained similar (−5.6% [p=0.0002] vs −7.3% [p=0.0001]). Targeted biopsy showed increased csPCa detection for PI-RADS 5, decrease in GG1 for PI-RADS 3, and both for PI-RADS 4 relative to systematic biopsy. Combined biopsy detected more csPCa (+10.0%) and slightly fewer GG1 PCa (−0.5%) compared to systematic alone. Upgrading to ≥GG2 by targeted biopsy occurred in 9.8% with no cancer and 23.6% with GG1 on systematic biopsy. Conclusions: Combined biopsy doubled the benefit of targeted biopsy alone in detection of csPCa without increasing GG1 PCa diagnoses relative to systematic biopsy. Utility of targeted biopsy was higher in the prior negative biopsy cohort, but advantages of combined biopsy were maintained regardless of biopsy history.

[1]  M. Quek,et al.  Risk of prostate cancer for men with prior negative biopsies undergoing magnetic resonance imaging compared with biopsy‐naive men: A prospective evaluation of the PLUM cohort , 2021, Cancer.

[2]  A. Partin,et al.  Advances in the selection of patients with prostate cancer for active surveillance , 2021, Nature Reviews Urology.

[3]  John Lahoud,et al.  Perilesional Biopsies Increase Detection of Significant Prostate Cancer in Men with PI-RADS 4/5 Lesions: Validation of the PI-RADS Steering Committee Recommendation. , 2021, European urology.

[4]  C. Earle,et al.  Comparison of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Biopsy With Systematic Transrectal Ultrasonography Biopsy for Biopsy-Naive Men at Risk for Prostate Cancer: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial. , 2021, JAMA oncology.

[5]  P. Stricker,et al.  Re: The Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Active Surveillance (MRIAS) Trial: Use of Baseline Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Saturation Biopsy to Reduce the Frequency of Surveillance Prostate Biopsies. , 2020, The Journal of urology.

[6]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Variability of the Positive Predictive Value of PI-RADS for Prostate MRI across 26 Centers: Experience of the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel. , 2020, Radiology.

[7]  J. Epstein,et al.  Downgrading of grade group 2 intermediate‐risk prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: Comparison of outcomes and predictors to identify potential candidates for active surveillance , 2020, Cancer.

[8]  G. Pond,et al.  Randomized Study of Systematic Biopsy Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Targeted and Systematic Biopsy in Men on Active Surveillance (ASIST): 2-year Postbiopsy Follow-up. , 2019, European urology.

[9]  A. Sisk,et al.  Comparison of Targeted vs Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Men Who Are Biopsy Naive: The Prospective Assessment of Image Registration in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer (PAIREDCAP) Study. , 2019, JAMA surgery.

[10]  Paul A. Harris,et al.  The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners , 2019, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[11]  Laurent Lemaitre,et al.  Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. , 2019, The Lancet. Oncology.

[12]  V. Ficarra,et al.  Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsy: A Plea for a Change in Terminology, and Beyond. , 2020, European Urology Oncology.

[13]  S. Rais-Bahrami,et al.  Imaging as a Personalized Biomarker for Prostate Cancer Risk Stratification , 2018, Diagnostics.

[14]  S. Rais-Bahrami,et al.  Prostate cancer management choices in patients undergoing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy compared to systematic biopsy. , 2018, Urologic oncology.

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

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

[17]  Shyam Natarajan,et al.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging Underestimation of Prostate Cancer Geometry: Use of Patient Specific Molds to Correlate Images with Whole Mount Pathology , 2017, The Journal of urology.

[18]  H. Carter,et al.  Improving Prostate Cancer Screening and Diagnosis: Health Policy and Biomarkers Beyond PSA. , 2016, JAMA oncology.

[19]  Ewout W Steyerberg,et al.  Net benefit approaches to the evaluation of prediction models, molecular markers, and diagnostic tests , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[20]  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.

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