MRI-targeted biopsy for detecting prostate cancer: have the guidelines changed our practices and our prostate cancer detection rate?
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.
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%.
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.
KeywordsProstate cancer Biopsy Magnetic resonance imaging Detection rate
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.
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.
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).
- 1.EAU Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Barcelona 2019. ISBN 978-94-92671-04-2Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.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
- 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.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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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