Skip to main content

Nonsuspicious prebiopsy multiparametric MRI: is prostate biopsy still necessary?

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the negative predictive value (NPV) of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), alone or combined with Prostate-Specific Antigen density (PSAd) to exclude clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).

Patients and Methods

We performed a retrospective chart review of all the patients who had transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUSGB) in our center between January 2014 and March 2019. We included patients who had nonsuspicious prebiopsy mpMRI defined as Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) ≤ 2. MRI was performed using a 1.5 or 3-Tesla Magnetic Resonance scanners with external phased-array coil. The primary outcome was the detection of csPCa, defined as a Gleason score 3 + 4 (ISUP 2) or higher on at least one biopsy core.

Results

One hundred and ninety-one consecutive men (median age: 65 years, median PSA level: 9.3 ng/mL) underwent TRUSGB following negative prebiopsy mpMRI corresponding to 126 (66%) biopsy-naïve patients, 36 (18.8%) patients with prior negative biopsy, and 29 (15.2%) patients under active surveillance with confirmatory biopsies. The overall PCa and csPCA detection rates were 26.7% and 5.2%, conferring a NPV of 73.3% and 94.8%, respectively. The NPV of negative mpMRI improved to 95.8% in patients with PSAd < 0.15 ng/mL/cm3 and to 100% in patients with PSAd < 0.10 ng/mL/cm3.

Conclusions

A negative prebiopsy mpMRI had an overall NPV of 94.8% for csPCa when mpMRI was used alone to 95.8% when combined with PSAd < 0.15 ng/mL/cm3. Future studies are needed to balance the low benefit of a biopsy in this indication with the morbidity of the procedure.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. 1.

    Flavie Bratan, Emilie Niaf, Christelle Melodelima, et al. Influence of imaging and histological factors on prostate cancer detection and localisation on multiparametric MRI: a prospective study. Eur Radiol. 2013 Jul;23(7):2019-29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Borofsky S, George AK, Gaur S, et al. What Are We Missing? False-Negative Cancers at Multiparametric MR Imaging of the Prostate. Radiology. 2018;286(1):186‑95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Woo S, Suh CH, Eastham JA, et al. Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-stratified Clinical Pathways and Systematic Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Biopsy Pathway for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Eur Urol Oncol. nov 2019;2(6):605‑16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Kasivisvanathan V, Stabile A, Neves JB, et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy Versus Systematic Biopsy in the Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol. sept 2019;76(3):284‑303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018 May 10;378(19):1767-1777.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Drost F-JH, Osses D, Nieboer D, et al. Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging, with or Without Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy, and Systematic Biopsy for Detecting Prostate Cancer: A Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2020 Jan;77(1):78-94.

  7. 7.

    van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B, et al. 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. 2019;75(4):570‑8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, 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. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(1):100‑9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Mohler JL, Antonarakis ES, Armstrong AJ, et al. Prostate Cancer, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019 May 1;17(5):479-505.

  10. 10.

    Lam TBL, MacLennan S, Willemse P-PM, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel Consensus Statements for Deferred Treatment with Curative Intent for Localised Prostate Cancer from an International Collaborative Study (DETECTIVE Study). Eur Urol. 2019 Dec;76(6):790-813.

  11. 11.

    Kitajima K, Kaji Y, Fukabori Y, Yoshida K, Suganuma N, Sugimura K. Prostate cancer detection with 3 T MRI: comparison of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in combination with T2-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010 Mar;31(3):625-31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Abd-Alazeez M, Ahmed HU, Arya M, et al. The accuracy of multiparametric MRI in men with negative biopsy and elevated PSA level–can it rule out clinically significant prostate cancer? Urol Oncol. 2014 Jan;32(1):45.e17-22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    de Rooij M, Hamoen EHJ, Fütterer JJ, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Feb;202(2):343-51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Kim E.H., Weaver J.K., Shetty A.S., Vetter J.M., Andriole G.L., Strope S.A. Magnetic resonance imaging provides added value to the prostate cancer prevention trial risk calculator for patients with estimated risk of high-grade prostate cancer less than or equal to 10. Urology. 2017;102:183–189.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Radtke J.P., Wiesenfarth M., Kesch C., 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. Eur. Urol. 2017;72:888–896.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Pagniez MA, Kasivisvanathan V, Puech P, Drumez E, Villers A, Olivier J. Predictive Factors of Missed Clinically Significant Prostate Cancers in Men with Negative Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Urol. 22 janv 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/ju0000000000000757.

  17. 17.

    Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):16-40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Wysock JS, Mendhiratta N, Zattoni F, et al. Predictive value of negative 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate on 12-core biopsy results. BJU Int. 2016;118(4):515‑20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Radtke JP, Kuru TH, Boxler S, et al. Comparative analysis of transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy with magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion guidance. J Urol. 2015 Jan;193(1):87-94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Moldovan PC, Van den Broeck T, Sylvester R, et al. What Is the Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Excluding Prostate Cancer at Biopsy? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol. 2017;72(2):250‑66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Eggener SE, Badani K, Barocas DA, et al. Gleason 6 Prostate Cancer: Translating Biology into Population Health. J Urol. sept 2015;194(3):626‑34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Karram S, Trock BJ, Netto GJ, Epstein JI. Should intervening benign tissue be included in the measurement of discontinuous foci of cancer on prostate needle biopsy? Correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. Am J Surg Pathol. sept 2011;35(9):1351‑5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Van der Kwast TH. Re: should intervening benign tissue be included in the measurement of discontinuous foci of cancer on prostate needle biopsy? Correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. Eur Urol. 2012 Jan;61(1):220.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    van Vugt HA, Kranse R, Steyerberg EW, et al. Prospective validation of a risk calculator which calculates the probability of a positive prostate biopsy in a contemporary clinical cohort. Eur J Cancer. 2012 Aug;48(12):1809-15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Louie KS, Seigneurin A, Cathcart P, Sasieni P. Do prostate cancer risk models improve the predictive accuracy of PSA screening? A meta-analysis. Ann Oncol. 2015 May;26(5):848-64.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Mozer P, Rouprêt M, Le Cossec C, et al. First round of targeted biopsies using magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion compared with conventional transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsies for the diagnosis of localised prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2015 Jan;115(1):50-7.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Liddell H, Jyoti R, Haxhimolla HZ. mp-MRI Prostate Characterised PIRADS 3 Lesions are Associated with a Low Risk of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer - A Retrospective Review of 92 Biopsied PIRADS 3 Lesions. Curr Urol. 2015 Jul;8(2):96-100.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Panebianco V, Barchetti G, Simone G, et al. Negative Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer: What’s Next? Eur Urol. 2018;74(1):48‑54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Baboudjian.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Anastay, V., Gondran-Tellier, B., McManus, R. et al. Nonsuspicious prebiopsy multiparametric MRI: is prostate biopsy still necessary?. Abdom Radiol 45, 4160–4165 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02728-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Prostate cancer
  • MRI
  • Biopsy
  • Prostate-specific antigen