Advertisement

Comparison of Cancer Detection Rates Between TRUS-Guided Biopsy and MRI-Targeted Biopsy According to PSA Level in Biopsy-Naive Patients: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Published:September 12, 2018DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2018.09.007

      Abstract

      Background

      The purpose of the study was to compare cancer detection rates between 12-core transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx) and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-guided target prostate biopsy (MRI-TBx) according to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level in biopsy-naive patients.

      Patients and Methods

      A retrospective study was conducted in 2009 biopsy-naive patients with suspected prostate cancer (PSA ≤20 ng/mL). Patients underwent TRUS-Bx (n = 1786) or MRI-guided target prostate biopsy (MRI-TBx; n = 223) from September 2013 to March 2017 and were stratified according to each of 4 PSA cutoffs. MRI-TBx was performed on lesions with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores of 3 to 5 on mpMRI. Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined as Gleason ≥7. Propensity score matching was performed using the prebiopsy variables, which included age, PSA, prostate volume, and PSA density.

      Results

      Propensity score matching resulted in 222 patients in each group. There were significant differences between the TRUS-Bx and MRI-TBx groups in the overall detection rates of prostate cancer (41.4% vs. 55.4%; P = .003) and csPCa (30.1% vs. 42.8%; P = .005). However, across PSA cutoffs, MRI-TBx detected more prostate cancer than TRUS-Bx at PSA levels of 2.5 to <4 (29.5% vs. 56.6%; P < .001). The csPCa detection rates of TRUS-Bx and MRI-TBx did not differ significantly within the PSA cutoffs. There was a significantly higher detection rate of prostate cancer and csPCa in lesions with PI-RADS scores 4 and 5 than in those with a score of 3.

      Conclusion

      Prebiopsy mpMRI and subsequent targeted biopsy had a higher detection rate than TRUS-Bx in patients with prostate cancer and csPCa.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Genitourinary Cancer
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Cornford P.
        • Bellmunt J.
        • Bolla M.
        • et al.
        EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: treatment of relapsing, metastatic, and castration-resistant prostate cancer.
        Eur Urol. 2017; 71: 630-642
        • Abraham N.E.
        • Mendhiratta N.
        • Taneja S.S.
        Patterns of repeat prostate biopsy in contemporary clinical practice.
        J Urol. 2015; 193: 1178-1184
        • Caverly T.J.
        • Hayward R.A.
        • Reamer E.
        • et al.
        Presentation of benefits and harms in US cancer screening and prevention guidelines: systematic review.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016; 108: djv436
        • Loeb S.
        • Vellekoop A.
        • Ahmed H.U.
        • et al.
        Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy.
        Eur Urol. 2013; 64: 876-892
        • Kurhanewicz J.
        • Vigneron D.
        • Carroll P.
        • Coakley F.
        Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: present and future.
        Curr Opin Urol. 2008; 18: 71-77
        • Macura K.J.
        Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: current status in prostate cancer detection, localization, and staging.
        Semin Roentgenol. 2008; 43: 303-313
        • Kim J.K.
        • Jang Y.J.
        • Cho G.
        Multidisciplinary functional MR imaging for prostate cancer.
        Korean J Radiol. 2009; 10: 535-551
        • Seitz M.
        • Shukla-Dave A.
        • Bjartell A.
        • et al.
        Functional magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer.
        Eur Urol. 2009; 55: 801-814
        • Boonsirikamchai P.
        • Choi S.
        • Frank S.J.
        • et al.
        MR imaging of prostate cancer in radiation oncology: what radiologists need to know.
        Radiographics. 2013; 33: 741-761
        • Haffner J.
        • Lemaitre L.
        • Puech P.
        • et al.
        Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection.
        BJU Int. 2011; 108: E171-E178
        • Siddiqui M.M.
        • Rais-Bahrami S.
        • Truong H.
        • et al.
        Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy.
        Eur Urol. 2013; 64: 713-719
        • Delongchamps N.B.
        • Lefevre A.
        • Bouazza N.
        • Beuvon F.
        • Legman P.
        • Cornud F.
        Detection of significant prostate cancer with magnetic resonance targeted biopsies–should transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging fusion guided biopsies alone be a standard of care?.
        J Urol. 2015; 193: 1198-1204
        • Valerio M.
        • Donaldson I.
        • Emberton M.
        • et al.
        Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy: a systematic review.
        Eur Urol. 2015; 68: 8-19
        • Schoots I.G.
        • Roobol M.J.
        • Nieboer D.
        • Bangma C.H.
        • Steyerberg E.W.
        • Hunink M.G.
        Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Eur Urol. 2015; 68: 438-450
        • Baco E.
        • Rud E.
        • Eri L.M.
        • et al.
        A randomized controlled trial to assess and compare the outcomes of two-core prostate biopsy guided by fused magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound images and traditional 12-core systematic biopsy.
        Eur Urol. 2016; 69: 149-156
        • Tonttila P.P.
        • Lantto J.
        • Paakko E.
        • et al.
        Prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis in biopsy-naive men with suspected prostate cancer based on elevated prostate-specific antigen values: results from a randomized prospective blinded controlled trial.
        Eur Urol. 2016; 69: 419-425
        • Barentsz J.O.
        • Richenberg J.
        • Clements R.
        • et al.
        ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012.
        Eur Radiol. 2012; 22: 746-757
        • Portalez D.
        • Mozer P.
        • Cornud F.
        • et al.
        Validation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in a cohort of repeat biopsy patients.
        Eur Urol. 2012; 62: 986-996
        • Kuru T.H.
        • Roethke M.C.
        • Rieker P.
        • et al.
        Histology core-specific evaluation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) standardised scoring system of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate.
        BJU Int. 2013; 112: 1080-1087
        • D’Amico A.V.
        • Whittington R.
        • Malkowicz S.B.
        • et al.
        Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma in the prostate-specific antigen era.
        Cancer. 2002; 95: 281-286
        • Bastian P.J.
        • Mangold L.A.
        • Epstein J.I.
        • Partin A.W.
        Characteristics of insignificant clinical T1c prostate tumors. A contemporary analysis.
        Cancer. 2004; 101: 2001-2005
        • Hricak H.
        • Choyke P.L.
        • Eberhardt S.C.
        • Leibel S.A.
        • Scardino P.T.
        Imaging prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary perspective.
        Radiology. 2007; 243: 28-53
        • Sciarra A.
        • Panebianco V.
        • Ciccariello M.
        • et al.
        Value of magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging for detecting prostate cancer foci in men with prior negative biopsy.
        Clin Cancer Res. 2010; 16: 1875-1883
        • Franiel T.
        • Stephan C.
        • Erbersdobler A.
        • et al.
        Areas suspicious for prostate cancer: MR-guided biopsy in patients with at least one transrectal US-guided biopsy with a negative finding–multiparametric MR imaging for detection and biopsy planning.
        Radiology. 2011; 259: 162-172
        • Hoeks C.M.
        • Schouten M.G.
        • Bomers J.G.
        • et al.
        Three-Tesla magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy in men with increased prostate-specific antigen and repeated, negative, random, systematic, transrectal ultrasound biopsies: detection of clinically significant prostate cancers.
        Eur Urol. 2012; 62: 902-909
        • Komai Y.
        • Numao N.
        • Yoshida S.
        • et al.
        High diagnostic ability of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect anterior prostate cancer missed by transrectal 12-core biopsy.
        J Urol. 2013; 190: 867-873
        • Fradet V.
        • Kurhanewicz J.
        • Cowan J.E.
        • et al.
        Prostate cancer managed with active surveillance: role of anatomic MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging.
        Radiology. 2010; 256: 176-183
        • Margel D.
        • Yap S.A.
        • Lawrentschuk N.
        • et al.
        Impact of multiparametric endorectal coil prostate magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates: a prospective cohort study.
        J Urol. 2012; 187: 1247-1252
        • Delongchamps N.B.
        • Peyromaure M.
        • Schull A.
        • et al.
        Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer detection: comparison of random and targeted biopsies.
        J Urol. 2013; 189: 493-499
        • Pokorny M.R.
        • de Rooij M.
        • Duncan E.
        • et al.
        Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies.
        Eur Urol. 2014; 66: 22-29
        • Mendhiratta N.
        • Rosenkrantz A.B.
        • Meng X.
        • et al.
        Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted prostate biopsy in a consecutive cohort of men with no previous biopsy: reduction of over detection through improved risk stratification.
        J Urol. 2015; 194: 1601-1606
        • Mozer P.
        • Roupret M.
        • Le Cossec C.
        • et al.
        First round of targeted biopsies using magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion compared with conventional transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsies for the diagnosis of localised prostate cancer.
        BJU Int. 2015; 115: 50-57
        • Siddiqui M.M.
        • Rais-Bahrami S.
        • Turkbey B.
        • et al.
        Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.
        JAMA. 2015; 313: 390-397
        • Porpiglia F.
        • Manfredi M.
        • Mele F.
        • et al.
        Diagnostic pathway with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging versus standard pathway: results from a randomized prospective study in biopsy-naive patients with suspected prostate cancer.
        Eur Urol. 2017; 72: 282-288
        • Futterer J.J.
        • Briganti A.
        • De Visschere P.
        • et al.
        Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature.
        Eur Urol. 2015; 68: 1045-1053
        • Puech P.
        • Rouviere O.
        • Renard-Penna R.
        • et al.
        Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy–prospective multicenter study.
        Radiology. 2013; 268: 461-469
        • Wysock J.S.
        • Rosenkrantz A.B.
        • Huang W.C.
        • et al.
        A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial.
        Eur Urol. 2014; 66: 343-351