Why Does Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Biopsy Miss Clinically Significant Cancer?
biopsy
diagnosis
multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging
prostatic neoplasms
Journal
The Journal of urology
ISSN: 1527-3792
Titre abrégé: J Urol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0376374
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2022
01 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
27
8
2021
medline:
21
1
2022
entrez:
26
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Multiple studies demonstrate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy detects more clinically significant cancer than systematic biopsy; however, some clinically significant cancers are detected by systematic biopsy only. While these events are rare, we sought to perform a retrospective analysis of these cases to ascertain the reasons that MRI-targeted biopsy missed clinically significant cancer which was subsequently detected on systematic prostate biopsy. Patients were enrolled in a prospective study comparing cancer detection rates by transrectal MRI-targeted fusion biopsy and systematic 12-core biopsy. Patients with an elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA), abnormal digital rectal examination, or imaging findings concerning for prostate cancer underwent prostate MRI and subsequent MRI-targeted and systematic biopsy in the same setting. The subset of patients with grade group (GG) ≥3 cancer found on systematic biopsy and GG ≤2 cancer (or no cancer) on MRI-targeted biopsy was classified as MRI-targeted biopsy misses. A retrospective analysis of the MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy real-time screen captures determined the cause of MRI-targeted biopsy miss. Multivariable logistic regression analysis compared baseline characteristics of patients with MRI-targeted biopsy misses to GG-matched patients whose clinically significant cancer was detected by MRI-targeted biopsy. Over the study period of 2007 to 2019, 2,103 patients met study inclusion criteria and underwent combined MRI-targeted and systematic prostate biopsies. A total of 41 (1.9%) men were classified as MRI-targeted biopsy misses. Most MRI-targeted biopsy misses were due to errors in lesion targeting (21, 51.2%), followed by MRI-invisible lesions (17, 40.5%) and MRI lesions missed by the radiologist (3, 7.1%). On logistic regression analysis, lower Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS While uncommon, most MRI-targeted biopsy misses are due to errors in lesion targeting, which highlights the importance of accurate co-registration and targeting when using software-based fusion platforms. Additionally, some patients will harbor MRI-invisible lesions which are untargetable by MRI-targeted platforms. The presence of a low PI-RADS score despite a high PSA is suggestive of harboring an MRI-invisible lesion.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34433302
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000002182
pmc: PMC8665000
mid: NIHMS1731726
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
95-107Subventions
Organisme : Intramural NIH HHS
ID : ZIA BC011081
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Eur Urol. 2020 Aug;78(2):163-170
pubmed: 32370911
J Endourol. 2018 Mar;32(3):252-256
pubmed: 29284293
Lancet. 2017 Feb 25;389(10071):815-822
pubmed: 28110982
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2018 Nov;21(4):549-555
pubmed: 29988101
J Urol. 2017 Aug;198(2):316-321
pubmed: 28163032
BJU Int. 2015 Apr;115(4):562-70
pubmed: 25252133
Urology. 2012 Jan;79(1):233-9
pubmed: 22202553
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jan 1;28(1):126-31
pubmed: 19917860
World J Urol. 2019 Feb;37(2):235-241
pubmed: 29785491
BJU Int. 2016 Jan;117(1):80-6
pubmed: 25099182
Eur Urol. 2020 Sep;78(3):402-414
pubmed: 32444265
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Nov;48(5):1326-1335
pubmed: 29603833
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20(1):100-109
pubmed: 30470502
N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 5;382(10):917-928
pubmed: 32130814
J Urol. 2013 Nov;190(5):1721-1727
pubmed: 23727310
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Jul;205(1):W87-92
pubmed: 26102423
Eur J Radiol. 2012 Mar;81(3):456-60
pubmed: 21354732
Eur Urol. 2019 Sep;76(3):340-351
pubmed: 30898406
Eur Urol. 2021 Aug;80(2):260-261
pubmed: 33593652
BJU Int. 2017 Aug;120(2):233-238
pubmed: 28111879
J Urol. 2017 Feb;197(2):327-334
pubmed: 27582434
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 10;378(19):1767-1777
pubmed: 29552975
World J Urol. 2015 Nov;33(11):1707-14
pubmed: 25774003
JAMA. 2015 Jan 27;313(4):390-7
pubmed: 25626035
Nat Rev Urol. 2016 Feb;13(2):99-107
pubmed: 26718455
Radiographics. 2015 May-Jun;35(3):696-708
pubmed: 25786055
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020 Apr;51(4):1235-1246
pubmed: 31588646
Eur Urol. 2019 Jul;76(1):18-23
pubmed: 30685078
Comput Aided Surg. 2008 Sep;13(5):255-64
pubmed: 18821344
Eur Urol. 2019 May;75(5):733-740
pubmed: 30527787