Outcomes of a Diagnostic Pathway for Prostate Cancer Based on Biparametric MRI and MRI-Targeted Biopsy Only in a Large Teaching Hospital.
Gleason
MRI
biopsy
prostate cancer
systematic
targeted
Journal
Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Sep 2023
29 Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
20
08
2023
revised:
22
09
2023
accepted:
26
09
2023
medline:
14
10
2023
pubmed:
14
10
2023
entrez:
14
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Diagnostic pathways for prostate cancer (PCa) balance detection rates and burden. MRI impacts biopsy indication and strategy. A prospectively collected cohort database (N = 496) of men referred for elevated PSA and/or abnormal DRE was analyzed. All underwent biparametric MRI (3 Tesla scanner) and ERSPC prostate risk-calculator. Indication for biopsy was PIRADS ≥ 3 or risk-calculator ≥ 20%. Both targeted (cognitive-fusion) and systematic cores were combined. A hypothetical full-MRI-based pathway was retrospectively studied, omitting systematic biopsies in: (1) PIRADS 1-2 but risk-calculator ≥ 20%, (2) PIRADS ≥ 3, receiving targeted biopsy-cores only. Significant PCa (GG ≥ 2) was detected in 120 (24%) men. Omission of systematic cores in cases with PIRADS 1-2 but risk-calculator ≥ 20%, would result in 34% less biopsy indication, not-detecting 7% significant tumors. Omission of systematic cores in PIRADS ≥ 3, only performing targeted biopsies, would result in a decrease of 75% cores per procedure, not detecting 9% significant tumors. Diagnosis of insignificant PCa dropped by 52%. PCa undetected by targeted cores only, were ipsilateral to MRI-index lesions in 67%. A biparametric MRI-guided PCa diagnostic pathway would have missed one out of six cases with significant PCa, but would have considerably reduced the number of biopsy procedures, cores, and insignificant PCa. Further refinement or follow-up may identify initially undetected cases. Center-specific data on the performance of the diagnostic pathway is required.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Diagnostic pathways for prostate cancer (PCa) balance detection rates and burden. MRI impacts biopsy indication and strategy.
METHODS
METHODS
A prospectively collected cohort database (N = 496) of men referred for elevated PSA and/or abnormal DRE was analyzed. All underwent biparametric MRI (3 Tesla scanner) and ERSPC prostate risk-calculator. Indication for biopsy was PIRADS ≥ 3 or risk-calculator ≥ 20%. Both targeted (cognitive-fusion) and systematic cores were combined. A hypothetical full-MRI-based pathway was retrospectively studied, omitting systematic biopsies in: (1) PIRADS 1-2 but risk-calculator ≥ 20%, (2) PIRADS ≥ 3, receiving targeted biopsy-cores only.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Significant PCa (GG ≥ 2) was detected in 120 (24%) men. Omission of systematic cores in cases with PIRADS 1-2 but risk-calculator ≥ 20%, would result in 34% less biopsy indication, not-detecting 7% significant tumors. Omission of systematic cores in PIRADS ≥ 3, only performing targeted biopsies, would result in a decrease of 75% cores per procedure, not detecting 9% significant tumors. Diagnosis of insignificant PCa dropped by 52%. PCa undetected by targeted cores only, were ipsilateral to MRI-index lesions in 67%.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
A biparametric MRI-guided PCa diagnostic pathway would have missed one out of six cases with significant PCa, but would have considerably reduced the number of biopsy procedures, cores, and insignificant PCa. Further refinement or follow-up may identify initially undetected cases. Center-specific data on the performance of the diagnostic pathway is required.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37835494
pii: cancers15194800
doi: 10.3390/cancers15194800
pmc: PMC10571962
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Eur Urol. 2019 Apr;75(4):570-578
pubmed: 30477981
Eur Urol. 2019 Feb;75(2):310-318
pubmed: 30082150
Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):41-9
pubmed: 26361169
World J Urol. 2021 Jul;39(7):2453-2461
pubmed: 33090259
Eur J Radiol. 2022 Nov;156:110520
pubmed: 36116141
Eur Urol Oncol. 2020 Oct;3(5):615-619
pubmed: 32646850
Eur Urol. 2019 Apr;75(4):582-590
pubmed: 30522912
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2019 May;44(5):1883-1893
pubmed: 30788558
Nat Rev Urol. 2023 Apr;20(4):241-258
pubmed: 36653670
BJU Int. 2004 Nov;94(7):1014-20
pubmed: 15541119
Lancet. 2017 Feb 25;389(10071):815-822
pubmed: 28110982
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021 Jan;216(1):3-19
pubmed: 32812795
Eur Urol. 2020 Sep;78(3):402-414
pubmed: 32444265
Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022 May 02;40:95-103
pubmed: 35540708
N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 5;382(10):917-928
pubmed: 32130814
Sci Rep. 2022 Apr 25;12(1):6746
pubmed: 35469056
Eur Urol. 2017 Dec;72(6):888-896
pubmed: 28400169
Acta Radiol Open. 2022 Mar 31;11(3):20584601221085520
pubmed: 35392628
World J Urol. 2012 Apr;30(2):149-55
pubmed: 22203238
Eur Urol. 2017 Jul;72(1):45-51
pubmed: 28162815
Radiology. 2017 Nov;285(2):493-505
pubmed: 28727544
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019 Feb;212(2):357-365
pubmed: 30512996
Radiology. 2008 Dec;249(3):900-8
pubmed: 19011187
Eur Urol Oncol. 2022 Apr;5(2):176-186
pubmed: 33846112
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 10;378(19):1767-1777
pubmed: 29552975
Eur Urol. 2021 Feb;79(2):243-262
pubmed: 33172724
Eur Urol. 2020 Sep;78(3):443-451
pubmed: 32360049
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020 Apr;51(4):1235-1246
pubmed: 31588646
Am J Surg Pathol. 2017 Apr;41(4):e1-e7
pubmed: 28177964
Eur Urol. 2013 Aug;64(2):204-15
pubmed: 23453419
World J Urol. 2019 Feb;37(2):243-251
pubmed: 29967944