Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve men: direct comparison of systematic biopsy, multiparametric MRI- and contrast-ultrasound-dispersion imaging-targeted biopsy.
MRI
detection
diagnosis
imaging
prostatic neoplasms
ultrasound
Journal
BJU international
ISSN: 1464-410X
Titre abrégé: BJU Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100886721
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2020
10 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
22
4
2020
medline:
21
1
2021
entrez:
22
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare and evaluate a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-targeted biopsy (TBx) strategy, contrast-ultrasound-dispersion imaging (CUDI)-TBx strategy and systematic biopsy (SBx) strategy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in biopsy-naïve men. A prospective, single-centre paired diagnostic study included 150 biopsy-naïve men, from November 2015 to November 2018. All men underwent pre-biopsy mpMRI and CUDI followed by a 12-core SBx taken by an operator blinded from the imaging results. Men with suspicious lesions on mpMRI and/or CUDI also underwent MRI-TRUS fusion-TBx and/or cognitive CUDI-TBx after SBx by a second operator. A non-inferiority analysis of the mpMRI- and CUDI-TBx strategies in comparison with SBx for International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group [GG] ≥2 PCa in any core with a non-inferiority margin of 1 percentage point was performed. Additional analyses for GG ≥2 PCa with cribriform growth pattern and/or intraductal carcinoma (CR/IDC), and GG ≥3 PCa were performed. Differences in detection rates were tested using McNemar's test with adjusted Wald confidence intervals. After enrolment of 150 men, an interim analysis was performed. Both the mpMRI- and CUDI-TBx strategies were inferior to SBx for GG ≥2 PCa detection and the study was stopped. SBx found significantly more GG ≥2 PCa: 39% (56/142), as compared with 29% (41/142) and 28% (40/142) for mpMRI-TBx and CUDI-TBx, respectively (P < 0.05). SBx found significantly more GG = 1 PCa: 14% (20/142) compared to 1% (two of 142) and 3% (four of 142) with mpMRI-TBx and CUDI-TBx, respectively (P < 0.05). Detection of GG ≥2 PCa with CR/IDC and GG ≥3 PCa did not differ significantly between the strategies. The mpMRI- and CUDI-TBx strategies were comparable in detection but the mpMRI-TBx strategy had less false-positive findings (18% vs 53%). In our study in biopsy-naïve men, the mpMRI- and CUDI-TBx strategies had comparable PCa detection rates, but the mpMRI-TBX strategy had the least false-positive findings. Both strategies were inferior to SBx for the detection of GG ≥2 PCa, despite reduced detection of insignificant GG = 1 PCa. Both strategies did not significantly differ from SBx for the detection of GG ≥2 PCa with CR/IDC and GG ≥3 PCa.
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Controlled Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
481-493Subventions
Organisme : KWF Kankerbestrijding
ID : UVA 2013-5941
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors BJU International © 2020 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 1767-77
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 2018; 75: 570-8
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: 100-9
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: 250-66
Bryant RJ, Hobbs CP, Eyre KS et al. Comparison of prostate biopsy with or without prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection: an observational cohort study. J Urol 2019; 201: 510-9
Drost FH, Osses DF, Nieboer D et al. Prostate MRI, with or without targeted biopsy and standard biopsy for detecting prostate cancer: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 4: CD012663
Walz J. The, “PROMIS” of magnetic resonance imaging cost effectiveness in prostate cancer diagnosis? Eur Urol 2018; 73: 31-2
Grey A, Ahmed HU. Multiparametric ultrasound in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 2016; 26: 114-9
Postema AW, Frinking PJ, Smeenge M et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound parametric imaging for the detection of prostate cancer. BJU Int 2016; 117: 598-603
Ghai S, Eure G, Fradet V et al. Assessing Cancer Risk on Novel 29 MHz micro-ultrasound images of the prostate: creation of the micro-ultrasound protocol for prostate risk identification. J Urol 2016; 196: 562-9
Boehm K, Salomon G, Beyer B et al. Shear wave elastography for localization of prostate cancer lesions and assessment of elasticity thresholds: implications for targeted biopsies and active surveillance protocols. J Urol 2015; 193: 794-800
Russo G, Mischi M, Scheepens W, De La Rosette JJ, Wijkstra H. Angiogenesis in prostate cancer: onset, progression and imaging. BJU Int 2012; 110: 794-808
Kuenen MP, Mischi M, Wijkstra H. Contrast-ultrasound diffusion imaging for localization of prostate cancer. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2011; 30: 1493-502
van Hove A, Savoie PH, Maurin C et al. Comparison of image-guided targeted biopsies versus systematic randomized biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic literature review of well-designed studies. World J Urol 2014; 32: 847-58
Kuenen MP, Saidov TA, Wijkstra H, de la Rosette JJ, Mischi M. Spatiotemporal correlation of ultrasound contrast agent dilution curves for angiogenesis localization by dispersion imaging. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 2013; 60: 2665-9
van Sloun RJ, Demi L, Postema AW, de la Rosette JJ, Wijkstra H, Mischi M. Ultrasound-contrast-agent dispersion and velocity imaging for prostate cancer localization. Med Image Anal 2017; 35: 610-9
Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V, Eggener S et al. Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an international working group. Eur Urol 2013; 64: 544-52
Postema AW, Scheltema MJV, Mannaerts CK et al. The prostate cancer detection rates of CEUS-targeted versus MRI-targeted versus systematic TRUS-guided biopsies in biopsy-naïve men: a prospective, comparative clinical trial using the same patients. BMC Urol 2017; 17: 1-8
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 16-40
Epstein JI, Egevad LL, Amin MB et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 2016; 40: 244-52.
Mannaerts CK, Kajtazovic A, Lodeizen OA et al. The added value of systematic biopsy in men with suspicion of prostate cancer undergoing multiparametric MRI-targeted biopsy. Urol Oncol 2019; 37: 298.e1-e9.
Schouten MG, van der Leest M, Pokorny M et al. Why and where do we miss significant prostate cancer with multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging followed by magnetic resonance-guided and transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in biopsy-naïve men? Eur Urol 2017; 71: 896-903
Boesen L, Nørgaard N, Løgager V, Balslev I, Thomsen HS. Where do transrectal ultrasound- and magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies miss significant prostate cancer? Urology 2017; 110: 154-60
Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D et al. Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS version 2 lexicon: a multicenter study of six experienced prostate. Radiology 2016; 280: 793-804
Muller BG, Shih JH, Sankineni S et al. Prostate cancer: interobserver agreement and accuracy with the revised prostate imaging reporting and data system at multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology 2015; 277: 741-50
Hansen NL, Koo BC, Gallagher FA et al. Comparison of initial and tertiary centre second opinion reads of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate prior to repeat biopsy. Eur Radiol 2017; 27: 2259-66
Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol. 2019; 76: 340-51
Wildeboer RR, van Sloun RJ, Wijkstra H, Mischi M. Artificial intelligence in multiparametric prostate cancer imaging with focus on deep-learning methods. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2020; 189: 105316
Dinh AH, Melodelima C, Souchon R et al. Characterization of Prostate Cancer with Gleason Score of at least 7 by using quantitative multiparametric MR imaging: validation of a computer-aided diagnosis system in patients referred for prostate biopsy. Radiology 2018; 287: 525-33
Porpiglia F, De Luca S, Passera R et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy: number and spatial distribution of cores for better index tumor detection and characterization. J Urol 2017; 198: 58-64
Kenigsberg AP, Renson A, Rosenkrantz AB et al. Optimizing the number of cores targeted during prostate magnetic resonance imaging fusion target biopsy. Eur Urol Oncol 2018; 1: 418-25
Lovegrove CE, Matanhelia M, Randeva J et al. Prostate imaging features that indicate benign or malignant pathology on biopsy. Transl Androl Urol 2018; 7: S420-35
Wildeboer RR, van Sloun RJ, Schalk SG et al. Convective-Dispersion modeling in three-dimensional contrast-ultrasound imaging for the localization of prostate cancer. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2018; 37: 2593-602
Mannaerts CK, Wildeboer RR, Remmers S et al. Multiparametric ultrasound for prostate cancer detection and localization: correlation of B-mode, shear wave elastography and contrast enhanced ultrasound with radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2019; 202: 1166-73
Bjurlin MA, Carter HB, Schellhammer P et al. Optimization of initial prostate biopsy in clinical practice: sampling, labeling and specimen processing. J Urol 2013; 189: 2039-46
Matoso A, Epstein JI. Defining clinically significant prostate cancer on the basis of pathological findings. Histopathology 2019; 74: 135-45
Kweldam CF, Kümmerlin IP, Nieboer D et al. Presence of invasive cribriform or intraductal growth at biopsy outperforms percentage grade 4 in predicting outcome of Gleason score 3+4=7 prostate cancer. Mod Pathol 2017; 30: 1126-32
Kweldam CF, Kümmerlin IP, Nieboer D et al. Prostate cancer outcomes of men with biopsy Gleason score 6 and 7 without cribriform or intraductal carcinoma. Eur J Cancer 2016; 66: 26-33
van Leenders GJ, Kweldam CF, Hollemans E et al. Improved prostate cancer biopsy grading by incorporation of invasive cribriform and intraductal carcinoma in the 2014 grade groups. Eur Urol 2020; 77: 191-8
Alberts AR, Roobol MJ, Verbeek JF et al. Prediction of high-grade prostate cancer following multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: improving the Rotterdam European Randomized Study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculators. Eur Urol 2019; 75: 310-8
Branger N, Maubon T, Traumann M et al. Is negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging really able to exclude significant prostate cancer? The real-life experience. BJU Int 2017; 119: 449-55