Nonsuspicious prebiopsy multiparametric MRI: is prostate biopsy still necessary?
Biopsy
MRI
Prostate cancer
Prostate-specific antigen
Journal
Abdominal radiology (New York)
ISSN: 2366-0058
Titre abrégé: Abdom Radiol (NY)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101674571
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2020
12 2020
Historique:
received:
28
06
2020
accepted:
30
08
2020
revised:
17
08
2020
pubmed:
10
9
2020
medline:
22
6
2021
entrez:
9
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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). 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. 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/cm 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/cm
Identifiants
pubmed: 32902661
doi: 10.1007/s00261-020-02728-8
pii: 10.1007/s00261-020-02728-8
doi:
Substances chimiques
Prostate-Specific Antigen
EC 3.4.21.77
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
4160-4165Références
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.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-013-2795-0
pubmed: 23494494
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.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017152877
pubmed: 29053402
pmcid: 29053402
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.
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2019.05.004
pubmed: 31204311
pmcid: 7406122
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.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.04.043
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.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
pubmed: 29552975
pmcid: 29552975
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.
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.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023
pubmed: 30477981
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.
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2
pubmed: 30470502
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.
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.
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.
doi: 10.1002/jmri.22075
pubmed: 20187206
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.
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2013.06.007
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.
doi: 10.2214/AJR.13.11046
pubmed: 24450675
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.
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.08.074
pubmed: 27919668
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.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.039
pubmed: 28400169
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 .
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.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052
pubmed: 26427566
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.
doi: 10.1111/bju.13427
pubmed: 26800439
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.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.07.098
pubmed: 25079939
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.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.02.026
pubmed: 28336078
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.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.01.126
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.
doi: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3182217b79
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.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.10.015
pubmed: 22122873
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.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.02.002
pubmed: 22406050
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.
pubmed: 25403590
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.
doi: 10.1111/bju.12690
pubmed: 24552477
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.
doi: 10.1159/000365697
pubmed: 26889125
pmcid: 4748763
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.
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.03.007
pubmed: 29566957