Natural history of histologically benign PIRADS 4-5 lesions in multiparametric MRI: Real-life experience in an academic center.
multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging
prostate cancer
targeted biopsy
Journal
The Prostate
ISSN: 1097-0045
Titre abrégé: Prostate
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8101368
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Jun 2024
25 Jun 2024
Historique:
revised:
26
05
2024
received:
22
02
2024
accepted:
19
06
2024
medline:
26
6
2024
pubmed:
26
6
2024
entrez:
26
6
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The follow-up findings of patients who underwent prostate biopsy for prostate image reporting and data system (PIRADS) 4 or 5 multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) findings and had benign histology were retrospectively reviewed. There were 190 biopsy-naive patients. Patients with at least 12 months of follow-up between 2012 and 2023 were evaluated. All MRIs were interpreted by two very experienced uroradiologists. Of the patients, 125 had either cognitive or software fusion MR-targeted biopsies with 4 + 8/10 cores. The remaining 65 patients had in-bore biopsies with 4-5 cores. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels below 4 ng/mL were defined as PSA regression following biopsy. PIRADS 1-3 lesions on new MRI images were classified as MRI regression. Median patient age and PSA were 62 (39-82) years and six (0.4-33) ng/mL, respectively, at the initial work-up. During a median follow-up period of 44 months, 37 (19.4%) patients were lost to follow-up. Of the remaining 153 patients, 82 (53.6%) had persistently high PSA. Among them, 72 (87.8%) had repeat mpMRI within 6-24 months which showed regressive findings (PIRADS 1-3) in 53 patients (73.6%) and PIRADS 4-5 index lesion persistence in 19 cases (26.4%). The latter group was recommended to have rebiopsy. Of these 19 patients, 16 underwent MRI-targeted rebiopsy. Prostate cancer was diagnosed in six (37.5%) patients and of these four (25%) were clinically significant (>Grade Group 1). Totally, clinically significant prostate cancer was detected in 4/153 (2.6%) patients followed up. Patients should be warned against the relative relaxing effect of a negative biopsy after identification of PIRADS 4-5 index lesion. While PSA decrease was observed in many patients during follow-up, persistent MRI findings were present in nearly a quarter of patients with persistently high PSA. A rebiopsy is warranted in these patients, with significant prostate cancer diagnosed in a quarter of patients with rebiopsy.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Kornienko K, Reuter M, Maxeiner A, et al. Follow‐up of men with a PI‐RADS 4/5 lesion after negative MRI/Ultrasound fusion biopsy. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):13603.
Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU‐EANM‐ESTRO‐ESUR‐SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer‐2020 Update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2021;79(2):243‐262.
Kilic M, Vural M, Coskun B, et al. Accuracy of sampling PI‐RADS 4‐5 index lesions alone by MRI‐guided in‐bore biopsy in biopsy‐naive patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus. 2020;6(2):249‐254.
Mazzone E, Stabile A, Pellegrino F, et al. Positive predictive value of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021;4(5):697‐713.
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. MRI‐targeted or standard biopsy for prostate‐cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(19):1767‐1777.
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.
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.
Meng X, Chao B, Chen F, Huang R, Taneja SS, Deng FM. Followup of men with PI‐RADS™ 4 or 5 abnormality on prostate magnetic resonance imaging and nonmalignant pathological findings on initial targeted prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2021;205(3):748‐754.
Becher E, Wysock JS, Taneja SS, Huang WC, Lepor H. A prospective study of cancer detection rates following early repeat imaging and biopsy of PI‐RADS 4 and 5 regions of interest exhibiting no clinically significant prostate cancer on prior biopsy. Can Urol Assoc J. 2022;16(12):418‐422.
Sheridan AD, Nath SK, Aneja S, et al. MRI‐ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 category 5 lesions found false‐positive at multiparametric prostate MRI. Am J Roentgenol. 2018;210(5):W218‐W225.
Kim HS, Lee CY, Lim DH, Kim CS, Baik S. The prostate cancer detection rate on the second prostate biopsy according to prostate‐specific antigen trend. Korean J Urol. 2012;53(10):686‐690.
Ullrich T, Arsov C, Quentin M, et al. Analysis of PI‐RADS 4 cases: management recommendations for negatively biopsied patients. Eur J Radiol. 2019;113:1‐6.
Hauth E, Jaeger H, Hohmuth H, Beer M. Follow‐up MR imaging of PI‐RADS 3 and PI‐RADS 4 prostate lesions. Clin Imaging. 2017;43:64‐68.
Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, Hooft L, et al. Comparing three different techniques for magnetic resonance imaging‐targeted prostate biopsies: a systematic review of in‐bore versus magnetic resonance imaging‐transrectal ultrasound fusion versus cognitive registration. Is there a preferred technique? Eur Urol. 2017;71(4):517‐531.
Schimmöller L, Blondin D, Arsov C, et al. MRI‐guided in‐bore biopsy: differences between prostate cancer detection and localization in primary and secondary biopsy settings. Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206(1):92‐99.
Kilic M, Acar O, Vural M, et al. Pathological accuracy in prostate cancer: single‐center outcomes of 3 different magnetic resonance imaging‐targeted biopsy techniques and random systematic biopsy. Turk J Urol. 2022;48(5):346‐353.
Bryk DJ, Llukani E, Huang WC, Lepor H. Natural history of pathologically benign cancer suspicious regions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging following targeted biopsy. J Urol. 2015;194(5):1234‐1240.
Şeref C, Acar Ö, Kılıç M, et al. Histologically benign PI‐RADS 4 and 5 lesions contain cancer‐associated epigenetic alterations. Prostate. 2022;82(1):145‐153.
Roberts MJ, Bennett HY, Harris PN, et al. Prostate biopsy‐related infection: a systematic review of risk factors, prevention strategies, and management approaches. Urology. 2017;104:11‐21.
Kinnaird A, Sharma V, Chuang R, et al. Risk of prostate cancer after a negative magnetic resonance imaging guided biopsy. J Urol. 2020;204(6):1180‐1186.
Wong LM, Koschel S, Whish‐Wilson T, et al. Investigating PSMA‐PET/CT to resolve prostate MRI PIRADS4‐5 and negative biopsy discordance. World J Urol. 2023;41(2):463‐469.
Peters M, Eldred‐Evans D, Kurver P, et al. Predicting the need for biopsy to detect clinically significant prostate cancer in patients with a magnetic resonance imaging‐detected prostate imaging reporting and data system/likert ≥3 lesion: development and multinational external validation of the imperial rapid access to prostate imaging and diagnosis risk score. Eur Urol. 2022;82(5):559‐568.
Wagaskar VG, Levy M, Ratnani P, et al. A SelectMDx/magnetic resonance imaging‐based nomogram to diagnose prostate cancer. Cancer Rep. 2023;6(1):e1668.
Zhuang L, Johnson MT. How precisely can prostate cancer be managed. Int Neurourol J. 2016;20(suppl 2):S120‐S130.