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.


Journal

European urology
ISSN: 1873-7560
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 7512719

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
04 2019
Historique:
received: 07 08 2018
accepted: 12 11 2018
pubmed: 28 11 2018
medline: 14 8 2019
entrez: 28 11 2018
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

There is growing interest to implement multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and MR-guided biopsy (MRGB) for biopsy-naïve men with suspected prostate cancer. Primary objective was to compare and evaluate an MRI pathway and a transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUSGB) pathway in biopsy-naïve men with prostate-specific antigen levels of ≥3ng/ml. A prospective, multicenter, powered, comparative effectiveness study included 626 biopsy-naïve patients (from February 2015 to February 2018). All patients underwent prebiopsy mpMRI followed by systematic TRUSGB. Men with suspicious lesions on mpMRI also underwent MRGB prior to TRUSGB. MRGB was performed using the in-bore approach. Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined as grade group ≥2 (Gleason score ≥3+4) in any core. The main secondary objectives were the number of men who could avoid biopsy after nonsuspicious mpMRI, the number of biopsy cores taken, and oncologic follow-up. Differences in proportions were tested using McNemar's test with adjusted Wald confidence intervals for differences of proportions with matched pairs. The MRI pathway detected csPCa in 159/626 (25%) patients and insignificant prostate cancer (insignPCa) in 88/626 patients (14%). TRUSGB detected csPCa in 146/626 patients (23%) and insignPCa in 155/626 patients (25%). Relative sensitivity of the MRI pathway versus the TRUSGB pathway was 1.09 for csPCa (p=0.17) and 0.57 for insignPCa (p<0.0001). The total number of biopsy cores reduced from 7512 to 849 (-89%). The MRI pathway enabled biopsy avoidance in 309/626 (49%) patients due to nonsuspicious mpMRI. Immediate TRUSGB detected csPCa in only 3% (10/309) of these patients, increasing to 4% (13/309) with 1-yr follow-up. At the same time, TRUSGB would overdetect insignPCa in 20% (63/309). "Focal saturation" by four additional perilesional cores to MRGB improved the detection of csPCa in 21/317 (7%) patients. Compared with the literature, our proportion of nonsuspicious mpMRI cases is significantly higher (27-36% vs 49%) and that of equivocal cases is lower (15-28% vs 6%). This is probably due to the high-quality standard in this study. Therefore, a limitation is the duplication of these results in less experienced centers. In biopsy-naïve men, the MRI pathway compared with the TRUSGB pathway results in an identical detection rate of csPCa, with significantly fewer insignPCa cases. In this high-quality standard study, almost half of men have nonsuspicious MRI, which is higher compared with other studies. Not performing TRUS biopsy is at the cost of missing csPCa only in 4%. We compared magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with MRI-guided biopsy against standard transrectal ultrasound biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve men. Our results show that patients can benefit from MRI because biopsy may be omitted in half of men, and fewer indolent cancers are detected, without compromising the detection of harmful disease. Men also need fewer needles to make a diagnosis.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
There is growing interest to implement multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and MR-guided biopsy (MRGB) for biopsy-naïve men with suspected prostate cancer.
OBJECTIVE
Primary objective was to compare and evaluate an MRI pathway and a transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUSGB) pathway in biopsy-naïve men with prostate-specific antigen levels of ≥3ng/ml.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND POPULATION
A prospective, multicenter, powered, comparative effectiveness study included 626 biopsy-naïve patients (from February 2015 to February 2018).
INTERVENTION
All patients underwent prebiopsy mpMRI followed by systematic TRUSGB. Men with suspicious lesions on mpMRI also underwent MRGB prior to TRUSGB. MRGB was performed using the in-bore approach.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined as grade group ≥2 (Gleason score ≥3+4) in any core. The main secondary objectives were the number of men who could avoid biopsy after nonsuspicious mpMRI, the number of biopsy cores taken, and oncologic follow-up. Differences in proportions were tested using McNemar's test with adjusted Wald confidence intervals for differences of proportions with matched pairs.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS
The MRI pathway detected csPCa in 159/626 (25%) patients and insignificant prostate cancer (insignPCa) in 88/626 patients (14%). TRUSGB detected csPCa in 146/626 patients (23%) and insignPCa in 155/626 patients (25%). Relative sensitivity of the MRI pathway versus the TRUSGB pathway was 1.09 for csPCa (p=0.17) and 0.57 for insignPCa (p<0.0001). The total number of biopsy cores reduced from 7512 to 849 (-89%). The MRI pathway enabled biopsy avoidance in 309/626 (49%) patients due to nonsuspicious mpMRI. Immediate TRUSGB detected csPCa in only 3% (10/309) of these patients, increasing to 4% (13/309) with 1-yr follow-up. At the same time, TRUSGB would overdetect insignPCa in 20% (63/309). "Focal saturation" by four additional perilesional cores to MRGB improved the detection of csPCa in 21/317 (7%) patients. Compared with the literature, our proportion of nonsuspicious mpMRI cases is significantly higher (27-36% vs 49%) and that of equivocal cases is lower (15-28% vs 6%). This is probably due to the high-quality standard in this study. Therefore, a limitation is the duplication of these results in less experienced centers.
CONCLUSIONS
In biopsy-naïve men, the MRI pathway compared with the TRUSGB pathway results in an identical detection rate of csPCa, with significantly fewer insignPCa cases. In this high-quality standard study, almost half of men have nonsuspicious MRI, which is higher compared with other studies. Not performing TRUS biopsy is at the cost of missing csPCa only in 4%.
PATIENT SUMMARY
We compared magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with MRI-guided biopsy against standard transrectal ultrasound biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve men. Our results show that patients can benefit from MRI because biopsy may be omitted in half of men, and fewer indolent cancers are detected, without compromising the detection of harmful disease. Men also need fewer needles to make a diagnosis.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30477981
pii: S0302-2838(18)30880-7
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

KLK3 protein, human EC 3.4.21.-
Kallikreins EC 3.4.21.-
Prostate-Specific Antigen EC 3.4.21.77

Banques de données

NTR
['NTR5555']

Types de publication

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

Langues

eng

Pagination

570-578

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Marloes van der Leest (M)

Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Erik Cornel (E)

Department of Urology, Ziekenhuis Groep Twente, Almelo-Hengelo, The Netherlands.

Bas Israël (B)

Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Rianne Hendriks (R)

Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Anwar R Padhani (AR)

Paul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK.

Martijn Hoogenboom (M)

Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Patrik Zamecnik (P)

Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Dirk Bakker (D)

Department of Urology, Ziekenhuis Groep Twente, Almelo-Hengelo, The Netherlands.

Anglita Yanti Setiasti (AY)

Department of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Jeroen Veltman (J)

Department of Radiology, Ziekenhuis Groep Twente, Almelo-Hengelo, The Netherlands.

Huib van den Hout (H)

Department of Radiology, Ziekenhuis Groep Twente, Almelo-Hengelo, The Netherlands.

Hans van der Lelij (H)

Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Inge van Oort (I)

Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Sjoerd Klaver (S)

Department of Urology, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Frans Debruyne (F)

Department of Urology, Andros Men's and Gynos Women's Health Institutes, Arnhem, The Netherlands.

Michiel Sedelaar (M)

Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Gerjon Hannink (G)

Department for Operating Rooms, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Maroeska Rovers (M)

Department for Operating Rooms, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Christina Hulsbergen-van de Kaa (C)

Department of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Jelle O Barentsz (JO)

Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: jelle.barentsz@radboudumc.nl.

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