Dataset Information

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.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guidance improves the accuracy of prostate biopsy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, but the optimal use of such guidance is not yet clear.

Objective

To determine the cancer detection rate (CDR) of targeting MRI-visible lesions vs systematic prostate sampling in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in men who were biopsy naive.

Design, setting, and participants

This paired cohort trial, known as the Prospective Assessment of Image Registration in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer (PAIREDCAP) study, was conducted in an academic medical center from January 2015 to April 2018. Men undergoing first-time prostate biopsy were enrolled. Paired-cohort participants were a consecutive series of men with MRI-visible lesions (defined by a Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System version 2 score ≥ 3), who each underwent 3 biopsy methods at the same sitting: first, a systematic biopsy; second, an MRI-lesion biopsy targeted by cognitive fusion; and third, an MRI-lesion targeted by software fusion. Another consecutive series of men without MRI-visible lesions underwent systematic biopsies to help determine the false-negative rate of MRI during the trial period.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary end point was the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason grade group ≥2) overall and by each biopsy method separately. The secondary end points were the effects of the Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System version 2 grade, prostate-specific antigen density, and prostate volume on the primary end point. Tertiary end points were the false-negative rate of MRI and concordance of biopsy-method results by location of detected cancers within the prostate.

Results

A total of 300 men participated; 248 had MRI-visible lesions (mean [SD] age, 65.5 [7.7] years; 197 were white [79.4%]), and 52 were control participants (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [5.9] years; 39 were white [75%]). The overall CDR was 70% in the paired cohort group, achieved by combining systematic and targeted biopsy results. The CDR by systematic sampling was 15% in the group without MRI-visible lesions. In the paired-cohort group, CDRs varied from 47% (116 of 248 men) when using cognitive fusion biopsy alone, to approximately 60% when using systematic biopsy (149 of 248 men) or either fusion method alone (154 of 248 men), to 70% (174 of 248 men) when combining systematic and targeted biopsy. Discordance of tumor locations suggests that the different biopsy methods detect different tumors. Thus, combining targeting and systematic sampling provide greatest sensitivity for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. For all biopsy methods, the Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System version 2 grade and prostate-specific antigen density were directly associated with CDRs, and prostate volume was inversely associated.

Conclusions and relevance

An MRI-visible lesion in men undergoing first-time prostate biopsy identifies those with a heightened risk of clinically significant prostate cancer. Combining targeted and systematic biopsy offers the best chances of detecting the cancer.

SUBMITTER: Elkhoury FF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6563598 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe Prostate Health Index is validated for prostate cancer detection but has not been well validated for Gleason grade group 2-5 prostate cancer detection in Black men. We hypothesize that the Prostate Health Index has greater accuracy than prostate specific antigen for detection of Gleason grade group 2-5 prostate cancer. We estimated probability of overall and Gleason grade group 2-5 prostate cancer across previously established Prostate Health Index ranges and identified Prostate Health Index cutoffs that maximize specificity for Gleason grade group 2-5 prostate cancer with sensitivity >90%.Materials and methodsWe recruited a "cancer-free" Black control cohort (135 patients) and a cohort of biopsy naïve Black men (158) biopsied for elevated prostate specific antigen. Descriptive statistics compared the prostate cancer cases and controls and the frequency of Gleason grade group 2-5 prostate cancer across Prostate Health Index scores. Receiver operating characteristics compared the discrimination of prostate specific antigen, Prostate Health Index and other prostate specific antigen related biomarkers. Sensitivity and specificity for Gleason grade group 2-5 prostate cancer detection were assessed at prostate specific antigen and Prostate Health Index thresholds alone and in series.ResultsOf biopsied subjects 32.9% had Gleason grade group 2-5 prostate cancer. In Blacks with prostate specific antigen from 4.0-10.0 ng/ml, Prostate Health Index and prostate specific antigen had similar discrimination for Gleason grade group 2-5 prostate cancer (0.63 vs 0.57, p=0.27). In Blacks with prostate specific antigen ≤10.0, a threshold of prostate specific antigen ≥4.0 had 90.4% sensitivity for Gleason grade group 2-5 prostate cancer; a threshold of prostate specific antigen ≥4.0 with Prostate Health Index ≥35.0 in series avoided unnecessary biopsy in 33.0% of men but missed 17.3% of Gleason grade group 2-5 prostate cancer. Prostate specific antigen ≥4.0 with Prostate Health Index ≥28.0 in series spared biopsy in 17.9%, while maintaining 90.4% sensitivity of Gleason grade group 2-5 prostate cancer.ConclusionsThe Prostate Health Index has moderate accuracy in detecting Gleason grade group 2-5 prostate cancer in Blacks, but Prostate Health Index ≥28.0 can be safely used to avoid some unnecessary biopsies in Blacks.

Project description:BackgroundRisk stratification in men with suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa) requires reliable diagnostic tests, not only to identify high-grade PCa, also to minimize the overdetection of low-grade PCa, and reduction of "unnecessary" prostate MRIs and biopsies. This study aimed to evaluate the SelectMDx test to detect high-grade PCa in biopsy-naïve men. Subsequently, to assess combinations of SelectMDx test and multi-parametric (mp) MRI and its potential impact on patient selection for prostate biopsy.MethodsThis prospective multicenter diagnostic study included 599 biopsy-naïve patients with prostate-specific antigen level ≥3 ng/ml. All patients underwent a SelectMDx test and mpMRI before systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUSGB). Patients with a suspicious mpMRI also had an in-bore MR-guided biopsy (MRGB). Histopathologic outcome of TRUSGB and MRGB was used as reference standard. High-grade PCa was defined as ISUP Grade Group (GG) ≥ 2. The primary outcome was the detection rates of low- and high-grade PCa and number of biopsies avoided in four strategies, i.e., (1) SelectMDx test-only, (2) mpMRI-only, (3) SelectMDx test followed by mpMRI when SelectMDx test was positive (conditional strategy), and (4) SelectMDx test and mpMRI in all (joint strategy). A positive SelectMDx test outcome was a risk score of ≥-2.8. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was performed to assess clinical utility.ResultsPrevalence of high-grade PCa was 31% (183/599). Thirty-eight percent (227/599) of patients had negative SelectMDx test in whom biopsy could be avoided. Low-grade PCa was not detected in 35% (48/138) with missing 10% (18/183) high-grade PCa. Yet, mpMRI-only could avoid 49% of biopsies, not detecting 4.9% (9/183) of high-grade PCa. The conditional strategy reduces the number of mpMRIs by 38% (227/599), avoiding biopsy in 60% (357/599) and missing 13% (24/183) high-grade PCa. Low-grade PCa was not detected in 58% (80/138). DCA showed the highest net benefit for the mpMRI-only strategy, followed by the conditional strategy at-risk thresholds >10%.ConclusionsSelectMDx test as a risk stratification tool for biopsy-naïve men avoids unnecessary biopsies in 38%, minimizes low-grade PCa detection, and misses only 10% high-grade PCa. Yet, using mpMRI in all patients had the highest net benefit, avoiding biopsy in 49% and missing 4.9% of high-risk PCa. However, if mpMRI availability is limited or expensive, using mpMRI-only in SelectMDx test positive patients is a good alternative strategy.

Project description:The current standard for Prostate Cancer (PCa) detection in biopsy-naïve men consists of 10-12 systematic biopsies under ultrasound guidance. This approach leads to underdiagnosis and undergrading of significant PCa while insignificant PCa may be overdiagnosed. The recent developments in MRI and Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) imaging have sparked an increasing interest in PCa imaging with the ultimate goal of replacing these "blind" systematic biopsies with reliable imaging-based targeted biopsies.In this trial, we evaluate and compare the PCa detection rates of multiparametric (mp)MRI-targeted biopsies, CEUS-targeted biopsies and systematic biopsies under ultrasound guidance in the same patients. After informed consent, 299 biopsy-naïve men will undergo mpMRI scanning and CEUS imaging 1 week prior to the prostate biopsy procedure. During the biopsy procedure, a systematic transrectal 12-core biopsy will be performed by one operator blinded for the imaging results and targeted biopsy procedure. Subsequently a maximum of 4 CEUS-targeted biopsies and/or 4 mpMRI-targeted biopsies of predefined locations determined by an expert CEUS reader using quantification techniques and an expert radiologist, respectively, will be taken by a second operator using an MRI-US fusion device. The primary outcome is the detection rate of PCa (all grades) and clinically significant PCa (defined as Gleason score ?7) compared between the three biopsy protocols.This trial compares the detection rate of (clinically significant) PCa, between both traditional systematic biopsies and targeted biopsies based on predefined regions of interest identified by two promising imaging technologies. It follows published recommendations on study design for the evaluation of imaging guided prostate biopsy techniques, minimizing bias and allowing data pooling. It is the first trial to combine mpMRI imaging and advanced CEUS imaging with quantification.The Dutch Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects registration number NL52851.018.15, registered on 3 Nov 2015. Clinicaltrials.gov database registration number NCT02831920 , retrospectively registered on 5 July 2016.

Project description:ImportanceMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with targeted biopsy is an appealing alternative to systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis, but has yet to be widely adopted.ObjectiveTo determine whether MRI with only targeted biopsy was noninferior to systematic TRUS biopsies in the detection of International Society of Urological Pathology grade group (GG) 2 or greater prostate cancer.Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter, prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted in 5 Canadian academic health sciences centers between January 2017 and November 2019, and data were analyzed between January and March 2020. Participants included biopsy-naive men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer who were advised to undergo a prostate biopsy. Clinical suspicion was defined as a 5% or greater chance of GG2 or greater prostate cancer using the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator, version 2. Additional criteria were serum prostate-specific antigen levels of 20 ng/mL or less (to convert to micrograms per liter, multiply by 1) and no contraindication to MRI.InterventionsMagnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy (MRI-TB) only if a lesion with a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), v 2.0, score of 3 or greater was identified vs 12-core systematic TRUS biopsy.Main outcome and measuresThe proportion of men with a diagnosis of GG2 or greater cancer. Secondary outcomes included the proportion who received a diagnosis of GG1 prostate cancer; GG3 or greater cancer; no significant cancer but subsequent positive MRI results and/or GG2 or greater cancer detected on a repeated biopsy by 2 years; and adverse events.ResultsThe intention-to-treat population comprised 453 patients (367 [81.0%] White, 19 [4.2%] African Canadian, 32 [7.1%] Asian, and 10 [2.2%] Hispanic) who were randomized to undergo TRUS biopsy (226 [49.9%]) or MRI-TB (227 [51.1%]), of which 421 (93.0%) were evaluable per protocol. A lesion with a PI-RADS score of 3 or greater was detected in 138 of 221 men (62.4%) who underwent MRI, with 26 (12.1%), 82 (38.1%), and 30 (14.0%) having maximum PI-RADS scores of 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Eighty-three of 221 men who underwent MRI-TB (37%) had a negative MRI result and avoided biopsy. Cancers GG2 and greater were identified in 67 of 225 men (30%) who underwent TRUS biopsy vs 79 of 227 (35%) allocated to MRI-TB (absolute difference, 5%, 97.5% 1-sided CI, -3.4% to ∞; noninferiority margin, -5%). Adverse events were less common in the MRI-TB arm. Grade group 1 cancer detection was reduced by more than half in the MRI arm (from 22% to 10%; risk difference, -11.6%; 95% CI, -18.2% to -4.9%).Conclusions and relevanceMagnetic resonance imaging followed by selected targeted biopsy is noninferior to initial systematic biopsy in men at risk for prostate cancer in detecting GG2 or greater cancers.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02936258.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The use of 12-core systematic prostate biopsy is associated with diagnostic inaccuracy that contributes to both overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis of prostate cancer. Biopsies performed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) targeting may reduce the misclassification of prostate cancer in men with MRI-visible lesions. METHODS:Men with MRI-visible prostate lesions underwent both MRI-targeted and systematic biopsy. The primary outcome was cancer detection according to grade group (i.e., a clustering of Gleason grades). Grade group 1 refers to clinically insignificant disease; grade group 2 or higher, cancer with favorable intermediate risk or worse; and grade group 3 or higher, cancer with unfavorable intermediate risk or worse. Among the men who underwent subsequent radical prostatectomy, upgrading and downgrading of grade group from biopsy to whole-mount histopathological analysis of surgical specimens were recorded. Secondary outcomes were the detection of cancers of grade group 2 or higher and grade group 3 or higher, cancer detection stratified by previous biopsy status, and grade reclassification between biopsy and radical prostatectomy. RESULTS:A total of 2103 men underwent both biopsy methods; cancer was diagnosed in 1312 (62.4%) by a combination of the two methods (combined biopsy), and 404 (19.2%) underwent radical prostatectomy. Cancer detection rates on MRI-targeted biopsy were significantly lower than on systematic biopsy for grade group 1 cancers and significantly higher for grade groups 3 through 5 (P<0.01 for all comparisons). Combined biopsy led to cancer diagnoses in 208 more men (9.9%) than with either method alone and to upgrading to a higher grade group in 458 men (21.8%). However, if only MRI-target biopsies had been performed, 8.8% of clinically significant cancers (grade group ?3) would have been misclassified. Among the 404 men who underwent subsequent radical prostatectomy, combined biopsy was associated with the fewest upgrades to grade group 3 or higher on histopathological analysis of surgical specimens (3.5%), as compared with MRI-targeted biopsy (8.7%) and systematic biopsy (16.8%). CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with MRI-visible lesions, combined biopsy led to more detection of all prostate cancers. However, MRI-targeted biopsy alone underestimated the histologic grade of some tumors. After radical prostatectomy, upgrades to grade group 3 or higher on histopathological analysis were substantially lower after combined biopsy. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others; Trio Study ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00102544.).

Project description:BackgroundMultiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-targeted prostate biopsies can improve detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and decrease the overdetection of insignificant cancers. It is unknown whether visual-registration targeting is sufficient or augmentation with image-fusion software is needed.ObjectiveTo assess concordance between the two methods.Design, setting, and participantsWe conducted a blinded, within-person randomised, paired validating clinical trial. From 2014 to 2016, 141 men who had undergone a prior (positive or negative) transrectal ultrasound biopsy and had a discrete lesion on mpMRI (score 3-5) requiring targeted transperineal biopsy were enrolled at a UK academic hospital; 129 underwent both biopsy strategies and completed the study.InterventionThe order of performing biopsies using visual registration and a computer-assisted MRI/ultrasound image-fusion system (SmartTarget) on each patient was randomised. The equipment was reset between biopsy strategies to mitigate incorporation bias.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisThe proportion of clinically significant prostate cancer (primary outcome: Gleason pattern ≥3+4=7, maximum cancer core length ≥4mm; secondary outcome: Gleason pattern ≥4+3=7, maximum cancer core length ≥6mm) detected by each method was compared using McNemar's test of paired proportions.Results and limitationsThe two strategies combined detected 93 clinically significant prostate cancers (72% of the cohort). Each strategy detected 80/93 (86%) of these cancers; each strategy identified 13 cases missed by the other. Three patients experienced adverse events related to biopsy (urinary retention, urinary tract infection, nausea, and vomiting). No difference in urinary symptoms, erectile function, or quality of life between baseline and follow-up (median 10.5 wk) was observed. The key limitations were lack of parallel-group randomisation and a limit on the number of targeted cores.ConclusionsVisual-registration and image-fusion targeting strategies combined had the highest detection rate for clinically significant cancers. Targeted prostate biopsy should be performed using both strategies together.Patient summaryWe compared two prostate cancer biopsy strategies: visual registration and image fusion. A combination of the two strategies found the most clinically important cancers and should be used together whenever targeted biopsy is being performed.

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare prostate cancer (PCa) detection rate of transperineal template-guided saturation prostate biopsy (SBx) and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided targeted biopsy (TBx). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 392 men who underwent SBx and TBx in case of suspicious lesions from November 2016 to October 2019. Triggers for a biopsy were an elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and/or positive digital rectal examination and only treatment naïve patients without a previous diagnosis of PCa were included. Study inclusion occurred before biopsy and a prebiopsy mpMRI was available in all men. SBx were taken from 20 different locations according to the modified Barzell zones. The primary endpoint was the detection rate of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) and insignificant PCa (ciPCa) by SBx and/or TBx by comparing the two methods alone and in combination. Additional TBx were taken for any prostate imaging-reporting and data system (PI-RADS) lesion ≥3 seen on the mpMRI. csPCa was defined as any Gleason score ≥7 and ciPCa as Gleason score 6.ResultsA total of 392 men with a median age of 64 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 58-69), a median PSA of 7.0 ng/ml (IQR: 4.8-10.1) were enrolled. Overall, PCa was found in 200 (51%) of all biopsied men, with 158 (79%) being csPCa and 42 (21%) ciPCa. A total of 268 (68%) men with a suspicious mpMRI and underwent a combined TBx and SBx, of whom csPCa was found in 139 (52%). In this subgroup, 116/139 (83%) csPCa would have been detected by TBx alone, and an additional 23 (17%) were found by SBx. Men with a negative mpMRI (PI-RADS < 3, n = 124, 32%) were found to have csPCa in 19 (15%) cases. In patients with a negative mpMRI in combination with a PSA density <0.1 ng/ml2 , only 8% (3/36) had csPCa. If only TBx would have been performed and all men with a negative mpMRI would not have been biopsed, 42/158 (27%) of csPCa would have been missed, and 38/42 (90%) ciPCa would have not been detected. On multivariable analysis, significant predictors of csPCa were increasing PSA (odds ratio, OR: 1.07 [95% confidence interval, CI: 1.03-1.11]), increasing age (OR: 1.07 [95% CI: 1.03-1.11]), PI-RADS score ≥ 3 (OR: 6.49 [95% CI: 3.55-11.89]), and smaller prostate volume (OR: 0.96 [95% CI: 0.95 -0.97] (p < 0.05 for all parameters).ConclusionIn comparison to SBx, TBx alone detects csPCa in only ¾ of all men with a positive mpMRI lesion. Thus, systematic biopsies in addition to TBx have to be considered at least in some who undergo a prostate biopsy. In men with a negative mpMRI, SBx still detects 15% csPCa, but similarly overdetecting ciPCa. According to our results, low PSA density and negative mpMRI findings could be used to decide which men can safely avoid biopsy.

Project description:Purpose To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of multiparametric diagnostic magnetic resonance (MR) imaging examination followed by MR imaging-guided biopsy strategies in the detection of prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men presenting with clinical suspicion of cancer for the first time. Materials and Methods A decision-analysis model was created for biopsy-naive men who had been recommended for prostate biopsy on the basis of abnormal digital rectal examination results or elevated prostate-specific antigen levels (age groups: 41-50 years, 51-60 years, and 61-70 years). The following three major strategies were evaluated: (a) standard transrectal ultrasonography (US)-guided biopsy; (b) diagnostic MR imaging followed by MR imaging-targeted biopsy, with no biopsy performed if MR imaging findings were negative; and (c) diagnostic MR imaging followed by MR imaging-targeted biopsy, with a standard biopsy performed when MR imaging findings were negative. The following three MR imaging-guided biopsy strategies were further evaluated in each MR imaging category: (a) biopsy with cognitive guidance, (b) biopsy with MR imaging/US fusion guidance, and (c) in-gantry MR imaging-guided biopsy. Model parameters were derived from the literature. The primary outcome measure was net health benefit (NHB), which was measured as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained or lost by investing resources in a new strategy compared with a standard strategy at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50 000 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed by using Monte Carlo simulations. Results Noncontrast MR imaging followed by cognitively guided MR biopsy (no standard biopsy if MR imaging findings were negative) was the most cost-effective approach, yielding an additional NHB of 0.198 QALY compared with the standard biopsy approach. Noncontrast MR imaging followed by in-gantry MR imaging-guided biopsy (no standard biopsy if MR imaging findings were negative) led to the highest NHB gain of 0.251 additional QALY compared with the standard biopsy strategy. All MR imaging strategies were cost-effective in 94.05% of Monte Carlo simulations. Analysis by age groups yielded similar results. Conclusion MR imaging-guided strategies for the detection of prostate cancer were cost-effective compared with the standard biopsy strategy in a decision-analysis model. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.