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.


Journal

The Lancet. Oncology
ISSN: 1474-5488
Titre abrégé: Lancet Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100957246

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 2019
Historique:
received: 14 06 2018
revised: 20 07 2018
accepted: 23 07 2018
pubmed: 25 11 2018
medline: 17 4 2020
entrez: 25 11 2018
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Whether multiparametric MRI improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and avoids the need for systematic biopsy in biopsy-naive patients remains controversial. We aimed to investigate whether using this approach before biopsy would improve detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive patients. In this prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study, done at 16 centres in France, we enrolled patients aged 18-75 years with prostate-specific antigen concentrations of 20 ng/mL or less, and with stage T2c or lower prostate cancer. Eligible patients had been referred for prostate multiparametric MRI before a first set of prostate biopsies, with a planned interval of less than 3 months between MRI and biopsies. An operator masked to multiparametric MRI results did a systematic biopsy by obtaining 12 systematic cores and up to two cores targeting hypoechoic lesions. In the same patient, another operator targeted up to two lesions seen on MRI with a Likert score of 3 or higher (three cores per lesion) using targeted biopsy based on multiparametric MRI findings. Patients with negative multiparametric MRI (Likert score ≤2) had systematic biopsy only. The primary outcome was the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer of International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 2 or higher (csPCa-A), analysed in all patients who received both systematic and targeted biopsies and whose results from both were available for pathological central review, including patients who had protocol deviations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02485379, and is closed to new participants. Between July 15, 2015, and Aug 11, 2016, we enrolled 275 patients. 24 (9%) were excluded from the analysis. 53 (21%) of 251 analysed patients had negative (Likert ≤2) multiparametric MRI. csPCa-A was detected in 94 (37%) of 251 patients. 13 (14%) of these 94 patients were diagnosed by systematic biopsy only, 19 (20%) by targeted biopsy only, and 62 (66%) by both techniques. Detection of csPCa-A by systematic biopsy (29·9%, 95% CI 24·3-36·0) and targeted biopsy (32·3%, 26·5-38·4) did not differ significantly (p=0·38). csPCa-A would have been missed in 5·2% (95% CI 2·8-8·7) of patients had systematic biopsy not been done, and in 7·6% (4·6-11·6) of patients had targeted biopsy not been done. Four grade 3 post-biopsy adverse events were reported (3 cases of prostatitis, and 1 case of urinary retention with haematuria). There was no difference between systematic biopsy and targeted biopsy in the detection of ISUP grade group 2 or higher prostate cancer; however, this detection was improved by combining both techniques and both techniques showed substantial added value. Thus, obtaining a multiparametric MRI before biopsy in biopsy-naive patients can improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer but does not seem to avoid the need for systematic biopsy. French National Cancer Institute.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Whether multiparametric MRI improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and avoids the need for systematic biopsy in biopsy-naive patients remains controversial. We aimed to investigate whether using this approach before biopsy would improve detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive patients.
METHODS
In this prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study, done at 16 centres in France, we enrolled patients aged 18-75 years with prostate-specific antigen concentrations of 20 ng/mL or less, and with stage T2c or lower prostate cancer. Eligible patients had been referred for prostate multiparametric MRI before a first set of prostate biopsies, with a planned interval of less than 3 months between MRI and biopsies. An operator masked to multiparametric MRI results did a systematic biopsy by obtaining 12 systematic cores and up to two cores targeting hypoechoic lesions. In the same patient, another operator targeted up to two lesions seen on MRI with a Likert score of 3 or higher (three cores per lesion) using targeted biopsy based on multiparametric MRI findings. Patients with negative multiparametric MRI (Likert score ≤2) had systematic biopsy only. The primary outcome was the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer of International Society of Urological Pathology grade group 2 or higher (csPCa-A), analysed in all patients who received both systematic and targeted biopsies and whose results from both were available for pathological central review, including patients who had protocol deviations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02485379, and is closed to new participants.
FINDINGS
Between July 15, 2015, and Aug 11, 2016, we enrolled 275 patients. 24 (9%) were excluded from the analysis. 53 (21%) of 251 analysed patients had negative (Likert ≤2) multiparametric MRI. csPCa-A was detected in 94 (37%) of 251 patients. 13 (14%) of these 94 patients were diagnosed by systematic biopsy only, 19 (20%) by targeted biopsy only, and 62 (66%) by both techniques. Detection of csPCa-A by systematic biopsy (29·9%, 95% CI 24·3-36·0) and targeted biopsy (32·3%, 26·5-38·4) did not differ significantly (p=0·38). csPCa-A would have been missed in 5·2% (95% CI 2·8-8·7) of patients had systematic biopsy not been done, and in 7·6% (4·6-11·6) of patients had targeted biopsy not been done. Four grade 3 post-biopsy adverse events were reported (3 cases of prostatitis, and 1 case of urinary retention with haematuria).
INTERPRETATION
There was no difference between systematic biopsy and targeted biopsy in the detection of ISUP grade group 2 or higher prostate cancer; however, this detection was improved by combining both techniques and both techniques showed substantial added value. Thus, obtaining a multiparametric MRI before biopsy in biopsy-naive patients can improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer but does not seem to avoid the need for systematic biopsy.
FUNDING
French National Cancer Institute.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30470502
pii: S1470-2045(18)30569-2
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Prostate-Specific Antigen EC 3.4.21.77

Banques de données

ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02485379']

Types de publication

Comparative Study Journal Article Multicenter Study Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

100-109

Investigateurs

Nicolas Barry Delongchamps (N)
Romain Boutier (R)
Flavie Bratan (F)
Serge Brunelle (S)
Philippe Camparo (P)
Pierre Colin (P)
Jean-Michel Corréas (JM)
François Cornélis (F)
François Cornud (F)
Fanny Cros (F)
Jean-Luc Descotes (JL)
Pascal Eschwege (P)
Gaelle Fiard (G)
Jean-Philippe Fendler (JP)
Hocine Habchi (H)
Philippe Hallouin (P)
Ahmed Khairoune (A)
Hervé Lang (H)
Yann Lebras (Y)
Frédéric Lefèvre (F)
Bernard Malavaud (B)
Paul Cezar Moldovan (PC)
Nicolas Mottet (N)
Pierre Mozer (P)
Pierre Nevoux (P)
Gaele Pagnoux (G)
Gilles Pasticier (G)
Daniel Portalez (D)
Eric Potiron (E)
Athivada Soto Thammavong (AS)
Marc-Olivier Timsit (MO)
Arnault Viller (A)
Jochen Walz (J)

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Olivier Rouvière (O)

Service d'Imagerie Urinaire et Vasculaire, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France; Faculté de Médecine Lyon Est, Lyon, France. Electronic address: olivier.rouviere@netcourrier.com.

Philippe Puech (P)

Service de Radiologie, CHU Lille, INSERM, Université de Lille, Lille, France; U1189 - ONCO-THAI - Image Assisted Laser Therapy for Oncology, Lille, France.

Raphaële Renard-Penna (R)

Services de Radiologie, Hôpitaux Tenon et Pitié Salpétrière, AP-HP, GRC-UPMC n°5 Oncotype-URO, Sorbonne Universités, Paris, France.

Michel Claudon (M)

IADI, INSERM, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France; Service de Radiologie, CHRU Nancy, Nancy, France.

Catherine Roy (C)

CHU de Strasbourg, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, Strasbourg, France.

Florence Mège-Lechevallier (F)

Service d'Anatomo-Pathologie, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.

Myriam Decaussin-Petrucci (M)

Service d'Anatomo-Pathologie, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France; Faculté de Médecine Lyon Sud, Lyon, France.

Marine Dubreuil-Chambardel (M)

Service d'Imagerie Urinaire et Vasculaire, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.

Laurent Magaud (L)

Center Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Pôle de Santé Publique, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France; Health Services and Performance Research, EA 7425 HESPER, Université de Lyon, Lyon, France.

Laurent Remontet (L)

Service de Biostatistique et Bioinformatique, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France; Université Lyon 1, Université de Lyon, Lyon, France; CNRS, UMR 5558, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive, Equipe Biostatistique-Santé, Villeurbanne, France.

Alain Ruffion (A)

Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Service d'Urologie, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France; Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie de Lyon - INSERM 1052 CNRS 5286, Centre Léon Bérard, Université Lyon 1, Lyon, France.

Marc Colombel (M)

Service d'Urologie, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France; Faculté de Médecine Lyon Est, Lyon, France.

Sébastien Crouzet (S)

Service d'Urologie, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France; Faculté de Médecine Lyon Est, Lyon, France.

Anne-Marie Schott (AM)

Center Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Pôle de Santé Publique, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France; Health Services and Performance Research, EA 7425 HESPER, Université de Lyon, Lyon, France.

Laurent Lemaitre (L)

Service de Radiologie, CHU Lille, INSERM, Université de Lille, Lille, France; U1189 - ONCO-THAI - Image Assisted Laser Therapy for Oncology, Lille, France.

Muriel Rabilloud (M)

Service de Biostatistique et Bioinformatique, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France; Université Lyon 1, Université de Lyon, Lyon, France; CNRS, UMR 5558, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive, Equipe Biostatistique-Santé, Villeurbanne, France.

Nicolas Grenier (N)

Service d'Imagerie Diagnostique et Interventionnelle de l'Adulte, CHU de Bordeaux, Université de Bordeaux, France.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH