Advertisement

MRI-targeted biopsy for detecting prostate cancer: have the guidelines changed our practices and our prostate cancer detection rate?

  • Michael BaboudjianEmail author
  • Quentin Bandelier
  • Bastien Gondran-Tellier
  • Rony Abdallah
  • Floriane Michel
  • Pierre Clement Sichez
  • Eugenie Di-Crocco
  • Akram Akiki
  • Sarah Gaillet
  • Veronique Delaporte
  • Marc Andre
  • Laurent Daniel
  • Gilles Karsenty
  • Eric Lechevallier
  • Romain Boissier
Urology - Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

In our center, until 2018, MRI-targeted biopsy was underused. Since January 2018, we systematically performed MRI-targeted biopsy for suspicious PI-RADS ≥ 3 lesions in accordance to the recent guidelines. We hypothesized that the implementation of systematic prebiopsy MRI would increase the detection rate (DR) of prostate cancer (PCa) without increasing DR of clinically insignificant PCa (insignPCa).

Patients and methods

A retrospective study including consecutive men who underwent prostate biopsy for suspicion of PCa in our center between January 2017 and December 2018 was conducted. Combined biopsies were performed for suspicious MRI and systematic biopsies for nonsuspicious MRI. The primary outcome was to compare the DR of PCa per year. Secondary outcomes included DRs of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) and insignPCa between both years and outcomes of targeted vs systematic biopsies.

Results

A total of 306 men (152 in 2017 and 154 in 2018) were included. Respectively, median (IQR) age was 69 (63–75) vs 70 (65–76) years (p = 0.29) and median (IQR) PSA density was 0.17 (0.13–0.28) vs 0.17 (0.11–0.26) (p = 0.24). There was a significant increase in prebiopsy MRI performed (120 [78.9%] vs 143 [92.8%]; p < 0.001) in 2018. DRs of PCa (94 [61.8%] vs 112 [72.7%]; p = 0.04) and csPCa (76 [50%] vs 95 [61.6%]; p = 0.04) increased in 2018, while the insignPCa DR was stable (p = 0.13). The DR of PCa was 58.3%, 65% and 71.2%, respectively, in targeted, systematic and combined biopsies (p = 0.02). In case of nonsuspicious MRI, the prevalence of csPCA was 12.5%.

Conclusions

Introducing systematical MRI-targeted biopsy in our clinical setting increased the PCa DR without overdiagnosing insignPCa. Implementation of prebiopsy MRI does not seem to avoid the need for systematic biopsy, and nonsuspicious MRI should not obviate the need for prostate biopsy when otherwise clinically indicated.

Keywords

Prostate cancer Biopsy Magnetic resonance imaging Detection rate 

Notes

Author contributions

Study concept and design: MB, RB and EL. Acquisition of data: MB, RB. Analysis and interpretation of data: MB, RB and EL. Drafting of the manuscript: MB, RB, EL. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: EL. Statistical analysis: BG-T.

Funding

None. Administrative, technical, or material support: Baboudjian, Boissier, Lechevallier, Gondran-Tellier, Akiki, Abdallah, Michel, Gaillet, Delaporte and Karsenty. Supervision: Boissier and Lechevallier.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None of the contributing authors has a conflict of interest, including specific financial interests and relationships and affiliations relevant to the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript.

Ethical approval

The study was declared and approved by the ethics committee of the Association Française d’Urologie (AFU). The study has guaranteed compliance at all times with the Law of Jardé on the Research including Human Persons (November 18, 2016, French Government).

References

  1. 1.
    EAU Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Barcelona 2019. ISBN 978-94-92671-04-2Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Guidelines on prostate cancer: 2018, update. 2018. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/default.aspx. Accessed 14 Mar 2019
  3. 3.
    Loeb S (2014) Guideline of guidelines: prostate cancer screening. BJU Int 114:323PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caverly TJ, Hayward RA, Reamer E et al (2016) Presentation of benefits and harms in US cancer screening and prevention guidelines: systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst 108:djv436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arnsrud Godtman R et al (2015) Opportunistic testing versus organized prostate-specific antigen screening: outcome after 18 years in the Goteborg randomized population-based prostate cancer screening trial. Eur Urol 68:354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alberts AR, Schoots IG, Roobol MJ (2015) Prostate-specific antigen-based prostate cancer screening: past and future. Int J Urol 22:524–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389:815–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M et al (2018) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 378:1767–1777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pokorny MR, de Rooij M, Duncan E et al (2014) 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. Eur Urol 66:22–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Castellucci R, Linares Quevedo AI, Sanchez Gomez FJ et al (2017) Prospective nonrandomized study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy to magnetic resonance imaging with subsequent MRI-guided biopsy in biopsy-naive patients. Minerva Urol Nefrol 69:589–595PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B et al (2015) Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 313:390–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tonttila PP, Lantto J, Paakko E et al (2016) Prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis in biopsy-naive men with suspected prostate cancer based on elevated prostate-specific antigen values: results from a randomized prospective blinded controlled trial. Eur Urol 69:419–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israel B et al (2019) Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance guided biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol 75:570–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weinreb JC et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69:16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kasel-Seibert M et al (2016) Assessment of PI-RADS v2 for the detection of prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol 85:726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 71:618–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB et al (2016) 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. Am J Surg Pathol 40:244–252PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Elkhoury FF, Felker ER, Kwan L, Sisk AE, Delfin M, Natarajan S, Marks LS (2019) 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. JAMA Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2019.1734 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Drost FJH et al (2019) Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD012663PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bratan F et al (2013) Influence of imaging and histological factors on prostate cancer detection and localisation on multiparametric MRI: a prospective study. Eur Radiol 23:2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rouvière O et al (2018) Added value of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy based on multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naïve patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective multicentre paired diagnostic study. Lancet OncolGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stabile A, Giganti F, Emberton M, Moore CM (2018) MRI in prostate cancer diagnosis: do we need to add standard sampling? A review of the last 5 years. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 21:473–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Villers A, Marliere F, Ouzzane A, Puech P, Lemaitre L (2012) MRI in addition to or as a substitute for prostate biopsy: the clinician’s point of view. Diagn Interv Imaging 93:262–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Filson CP, Natarajan S, Margolis DJA et al (2016) Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: the role of systematic and targeted biopsies. Cancer 122(6):884–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wegelin O, van Melick HH, Hooft L et al (2017) Comparing three different techniques for magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsies: a systematic review of in-bore versus magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion versus cognitive registration. Is there a preferred technique? Eur Urol 71:517–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Arsov C et al (2015) Prospective randomized trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided in-bore biopsy to MRI-ultrasound fusion and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol 68:713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Moldovan P, Udrescu C, Ravier E et al (2016) Accuracy of elastic fusion of prostate magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound images under routine conditions: a prospective multi-operator study. PLoS One 11:e0169120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wysock JS, Mendhiratta N, Zattoni F, Meng X, Bjurlin M, Huang WC, Lepor H, Rosenkrantz AB, Taneja SS (2016) Predictive value of negative 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate on 12-core biopsy results. BJU Int 118:515–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Washino S, Okochi T, Saito K, Konishi T, Hirai M, Kobayashi Y, Miyagawa T (2017) 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. BJU Int 119(2):225–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bhat NR, Vetter JM, Andriole GL, Shetty AS, Ippolito JE, Kim EH (2019) Magnetic resonance imaging-defined prostate-specific antigen density significantly improves the risk prediction for clinically significant prostate cancer on biopsy. Urology 126:152–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Baboudjian
    • 1
    Email author
  • Quentin Bandelier
    • 1
  • Bastien Gondran-Tellier
    • 1
  • Rony Abdallah
    • 1
  • Floriane Michel
    • 1
  • Pierre Clement Sichez
    • 1
  • Eugenie Di-Crocco
    • 1
  • Akram Akiki
    • 1
  • Sarah Gaillet
    • 1
  • Veronique Delaporte
    • 1
  • Marc Andre
    • 2
  • Laurent Daniel
    • 3
  • Gilles Karsenty
    • 1
  • Eric Lechevallier
    • 1
  • Romain Boissier
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Urology and Kidney TransplantationAPHM, Conception Academic Hospital, Aix-Marseille UniversityMarseilleFrance
  2. 2.Department of Radiology and Medical ImagingAPHM, Conception Academic Hospital, Aix-Marseille UniversityMarseilleFrance
  3. 3.Department of Pathological Anatomy and CytologyAPHM, Conception Academic Hospital, Aix-Marseille UniversityMarseilleFrance

Personalised recommendations