Optimizing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy and detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: the role of core number and location.
Cancer detection
Location
MRI-targeted biopsy
Number of cores
Prostate cancer
Journal
World journal of urology
ISSN: 1433-8726
Titre abrégé: World J Urol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8307716
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2023
Jun 2023
Historique:
received:
23
11
2022
accepted:
28
03
2023
medline:
7
6
2023
pubmed:
4
4
2023
entrez:
3
4
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There is currently no consensus regarding the optimal number of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy (TB) cores and their spatial distribution within the MRI lesion. We aim to determine the number of TB cores and location needed to adequately detect csPCa. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 505 consecutive patients undergoing TB for positive MRI lesions defined by a PI-RADS score ≥ 3 between June 2016 and January 2022. Cores chronology and locations were prospectively recorded. The co-primary outcomes were the first core to detect clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and the first highest ISUP grade group. The incremental benefit of each additional core was evaluated. Analysis was then performed by distinguishing central (cTB) and peripheral (pTB) within the MRI lesion. Overall, csPCa was detected in 37% of patients. To reach a csPCa detection rate of 95%, a 3-core strategy was required, except for patients with PI-RADS 5 lesions and those with PSA density ≥ 0.2 ng/ml/cc who benefited from a fourth TB core. At multivariable analysis, only a PSA density ≥ 0.2 ng/ml/cc was an independent predictive factor of having the highest ISUP grade group on the fourth TB cores (p = 0.03). No significant difference in the cancer detection rate was found between cTB and pTB (p = 0.9). Omitting pTB would miss 18% of all csPCa. A 3-core strategy should be considered for TB to optimize csPCa detection with additional cores needed for PI-RADS 5 lesions and high PSA density. Biopsy cores from both central and peripheral zones are required.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37010577
doi: 10.1007/s00345-023-04386-z
pii: 10.1007/s00345-023-04386-z
doi:
Substances chimiques
Prostate-Specific Antigen
EC 3.4.21.77
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1519-1525Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E et al (2021) EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer—2020 update. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 79:243–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042
pubmed: 33172724
Drost F-JH, Osses DF, Nieboer D et al (2019) Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012663.pub2
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012663.pub2
pubmed: 31022301
pmcid: 6699659
Exterkate L, Wegelin O, Barentsz JO et al (2020) 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 3:216–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2019.06.005
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2019.06.005
pubmed: 31239236
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M et al (2018) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 378:1767–1777. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
pubmed: 29552975
pmcid: 9084630
Zhang M, Milot L, Khalvati F et al (2019) Value of increasing biopsy cores per target with cognitive MRI-targeted transrectal US prostate biopsy. Radiology 291:83–89. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019180712
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019180712
pubmed: 30694165
Tracy CR, Flynn KJ, Sjoberg DD et al (2021) Optimizing MRI-targeted prostate biopsy: the diagnostic benefit of additional targeted biopsy cores. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig 39:193.e1-193.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.09.019
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.09.019
Bevill MD, Troesch V, Drobish JN et al (2022) Number of cores needed to diagnose prostate cancer during MRI targeted biopsy decreases after the learning curve. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig 40:7.e19-7.e24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.05.029
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.05.029
Kenigsberg AP, Renson A, Rosenkrantz AB et al (2018) Optimizing the number of cores targeted during prostate magnetic resonance imaging fusion target biopsy. Eur Urol Oncol 1:418–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2018.09.006
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.09.006
pubmed: 31158081
Ploussard G, Beauval J-B, Renard-Penna R et al (2020) Assessment of the minimal targeted biopsy core number per MRI lesion for improving prostate cancer grading prediction. J Clin Med 9:225. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9010225
doi: 10.3390/jcm9010225
pubmed: 31952120
pmcid: 7019328
Leyh-Bannurah S-R, Kachanov M, Beyersdorff D et al (2020) Minimum magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy cores needed for prostate cancer detection: multivariable retrospective, lesion based analyses of patients treated with radical prostatectomy. J Urol 203:299–303. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000527
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000527
pubmed: 31483694
Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU et al (2013) Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 64:876–892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.049
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.049
pubmed: 23787356
Weiner AB, Manjunath A, Kirsh GM et al (2020) The cost of prostate biopsies and their complications: a summary of data on all medicare fee-for-service patients over 2 years. Urol Pract 7:145–151. https://doi.org/10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000072
doi: 10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000072
Calio BP, Deshmukh S, Mitchell D et al (2019) Spatial distribution of biopsy cores and the detection of intra-lesion pathologic heterogeneity. Ther Adv Urol 11:175628721984248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1756287219842485
doi: 10.1177/1756287219842485
Porpiglia F, De Luca S, Passera R et al (2017) Multiparametric magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy: number and spatial distribution of cores for better index tumor detection and characterization. J Urol 198:58–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.01.036
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.01.036
pubmed: 28093292
Tu X, Lin T, Cai D et al (2020) The optimal core number and site for MRI-targeted biopsy of prostate? A systematic review and pooled analysis. Minerva Urol Nefrol. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03639-5
doi: 10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03639-5
pubmed: 32003207
Lu AJ, Syed JS, Ghabili K et al (2019) Role of core number and location in targeted magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 76:14–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.04.008
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.04.008
pubmed: 31047733
Aihara M, Wheeler TM, Ohori M, Scardino PT (1994) Heterogeneity of prostate cancer inradical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 43:60–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(94)80264-5
doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(94)80264-5
pubmed: 8284886
Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA et al (2019) Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol 76:340–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
pubmed: 30898406
de Rooij M, Israël B, Tummers M et al (2020) ESUR/ESUI consensus statements on multi-parametric MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: quality requirements for image acquisition, interpretation and radiologists’ training. Eur Radiol 30:5404–5416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06929-z
doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06929-z
pubmed: 32424596
pmcid: 7476997
Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R et al (2019) 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 20:100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2
pubmed: 30470502
Oerther B, Engel H, Bamberg F et al (2022) Cancer detection rates of the PI-RADSv2.1 assessment categories: systematic review and meta-analysis on lesion level and patient level. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 25:256–263. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-021-00417-1
doi: 10.1038/s41391-021-00417-1
pubmed: 34230616
Yadav SS, Stockert JA, Hackert V et al (2018) Intratumor heterogeneity in prostate cancer. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig 36:349–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.05.008
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.05.008
Yun JW, Lee S, Ryu D et al (2019) Biomarkers associated with tumor heterogeneity in prostate cancer. Transl Oncol 12:43–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranon.2018.09.003
doi: 10.1016/j.tranon.2018.09.003
pubmed: 30265975
Cornud F, Roumiguié M, Barry de Longchamps N et al (2018) Precision matters in MR imaging–targeted prostate biopsies: evidence from a prospective study of cognitive and elastic fusion registration transrectal biopsies. Radiology 287:534–542. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017162916
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017162916
pubmed: 29361246
Martin PR, Cool DW, Romagnoli C et al (2014) Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted, 3D transrectal ultrasound-guided fusion biopsy for prostate cancer: quantifying the impact of needle delivery error on diagnosis. Med Phys 41:073504. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4883838
doi: 10.1118/1.4883838
pubmed: 24989418
Martin PR, Cool DW, Fenster A, Ward AD (2018) A comparison of prostate tumor targeting strategies using magnetic resonance imaging-targeted, transrectal ultrasound-guided fusion biopsy. Med Phys 45:1018–1028. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12769
doi: 10.1002/mp.12769
pubmed: 29363762