Accuracy of elastic fusion biopsy: Comparing prostate cancer detection between targeted and systematic biopsy.
accuracy
elastic fusion
koelis
systematic
targeted
Journal
The Prostate
ISSN: 1097-0045
Titre abrégé: Prostate
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8101368
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2023
02 2023
Historique:
revised:
26
08
2022
received:
17
11
2021
accepted:
26
09
2022
pubmed:
20
10
2022
medline:
21
12
2022
entrez:
19
10
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
When performing targeted biopsy (TBx), the need to add systematic biopsies (SBx) is often debated. Aim of the study is to evaluate the added value of SBx in addition to TBx in terms of prostate cancer (PCa) detection rates (CDR), and to test the concordance between multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) findings and fusion biopsy results in terms of cancer location. We performed a retrospective, multicentric study that gathered data on 1992 consecutive patients who underwent elastic fusion biopsy between 2011 and 2020. A standardized approach was used, with TBx (2-4 cores per target) followed by SBx (12-14 cores). We assessed CDR of TBx, of SBx, and TBx+SBx for all cancers and clinically significant PCa (csPCa), defined as ISUP score ≥2. CDR was evaluated according to radiological and clinical parameters, with a particular focus on PI-RADS 3 lesions. In a subgroup of 1254 patients we tested the discordance between mpMRI findings and fusion biopsy results in terms of cancer location. Uni- and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of CDR. CDR of TBx+SBx was 63.0% for all cancers and 38.8% of csPCa. Per-patient analysis showed that SBx in addition to TBx improved CDR by 4.5% for all cancers and 3.4% for csPCa. Patients with lesions scored as PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 were diagnosed with PCa in 27.9%, 72.8%, and 92.3%, and csPCa in 10.7%, 43.6%, and 69.3%, respectively. When positive, PI-RADS 3 lesions were ISUP grade 1 in 61.1% of cases. Per-lesion analysis showed that discordance between mpMRI and biopsy was found in 56.6% of cases, with 710 patients having positive SBx outside mpMRI targets, of which 414 (58.0%) were clinically significant. PSA density ≥0.15 was a strong predictor of CDR. The addition of systematic mapping to TBx contributes to a minority of per-patient diagnoses but detects a high number of PCa foci outside mpMRI targets, increasing biopsy accuracy for the assessment of cancer burden within the prostate. High PSA-density significantly increases the risk of PCa, both in the whole cohort and in PI-RADS 3 cases.
Substances chimiques
Prostate-Specific Antigen
EC 3.4.21.77
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
162-168Informations de copyright
© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389(10071):815-822. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
Mottet N (chair), Cornford P (Vice-chair), van den Bergh R.C.N, Briers E, De Santis M. EAU-EANM-ESTRO_ESUR_ISUP_SIOG-Guidelines-on-Prostate-Cancer-2021. Published online 2021.
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. (Figure presented.). Eur Urol. 2019;75(4):570-578. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023
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):100-109. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2
Wegelin O, Exterkate L, van der Leest M, et al. The FUTURE trial: a multicenter randomised controlled trial on target biopsy techniques based on magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol. 2019;75(4):582-590. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.040
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1-11. doi:10.1056/nejmoa1801993
Mannaerts CK, Engelbrecht MRW, Postema AW, et al. Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve men: direct comparison of systematic biopsy, multiparametric MRI- and contrast-ultrasound-dispersion imaging-targeted biopsy. BJU Int. 2020;126(4):481-493. doi:10.1111/bju.15093
Exterkate L, Wegelin O, Barentsz JO, et al. Is there still a need for repeated systematic biopsies in patients with previous negative biopsies in the era of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsies of the prostate. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019;3:2-9. doi:10.1016/j.euo.2019.06.005
Drost FH, 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;77(1):78-94. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2019.06.023
Zhou Z, Zhou Y, Yan W, et al. Unilateral lesion detected on preoperative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and MRI/US fusion-guided prostate biopsy is not an appropriate indication for focal therapy in prostate cancer. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig. 2021:1-6. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.04.021
Choi YH, Yu JW, Kang MY, et al. Combination of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies is not enough for identifying patients eligible for hemiablative focal therapy for prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2019;37(10):2129-2135. doi:10.1007/s00345-018-02617-2
Oderda M, Marra G, Albisinni S, et al. Accuracy of elastic fusion biopsy in daily practice: results of a multicenter study of 2115 patients. Int J Urol. 2018;25(12):990-997. doi:10.1111/iju.13796
Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. Clin Chem. 2015;61(12):1446-1452. doi:10.1373/clinchem.2015.246280
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(4):746-757. doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y
Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Verma S, et al. Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 guidelines for multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and recommendations for use. Eur Urol. 2016;69(1):41-49. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.038
Kaneko M, Sugano D, Lebastchi AH, et al. Techniques and outcomes of MRI-TRUS fusion prostate biopsy. Curr Urol Rep. 2021;22(4):27. doi:10.1007/s11934-021-01037-x
Oderda M, Marra G, Albisinni S, et al. Elastic fusion biopsy versus systematic biopsy for prostate cancer detection: results of a multicentric study on 1119 patients. Actas Urológicas Españolas (English Ed. 2019;43(8):431-438. doi:10.1016/j.acuroe.2019.01.011
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. 2020;204(1):24-32. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000000757