The Added Value of Systematic Sampling in In-Bore Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Prostate Biopsy
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Ethics and Patient Cohort
2.2. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kasivisvanathan, V.; Rannikko, A.S.; Borghi, M.; Panebianco, V.; Mynderse, L.A.; Vaarala, M.H.; Briganti, A.; Budäus, L.; Hellawell, G.; Hindley, R.G.; et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 378, 1767–1777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ahmed, H.U.; Bosaily, A.E.; Brown, L.C.; Gabe, R.; Kaplan, R.; Parmar, M.K.; Collaco-moraes, Y. Diagnostic Accuracy of Multi-Parametric MRI and TRUS Biopsy in Prostate Cancer (PROMIS): A Paired Validating Confi Rmatory Study. Lancet 2023, 389, 815–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schoots, I.G.; Roobol, M.J.; Nieboer, D.; Bangma, C.H.; Steyerberg, E.W.; Hunink, M.G.M. 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. 2023, 68, 438–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Briganti, A.; De Visschere, P.; Emberton, M.; Giannarini, G.; Kirkham, A.; Taneja, S.S.; Thoeny, H.; Villeirs, G. Can Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Be Detected with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging ? A Systematic Review of the Literature. Eur. Urol. 2023, 68, 1045–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bloom, J.; Gurram, S.; Siddiqui, M.; Pinsky, P.; Parnes, H.; Linehan, W.M.; Merino, M.; Choyke, P.L.; Shih, J.H.; Turkbey, B.; et al. MRI-Targeted, Systematic, and Combined Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 917–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eklund, M.; Jäderling, F.; Discacciati, A.; Bergman, M.; Annerstedt, M.; Aly, M.; Glaessgen, A.; Carlsson, S.; Grönberg, H.; Nordström, T. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy in Prostate Cancer Screening. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 385, 908–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rouvière, O.; Puech, P.; Renard-penna, R.; Claudon, M.; Roy, C.; Mège-lechevallier, F.; Decaussin-petrucci, M. 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. 2023, 20, 100–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reporting, P.I. Comparison of Targeted vs Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Men Who Are Biopsy Naive The Prospective Assessment of Image Registration in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer (PAIREDCAP) Study. JAMA Surg. 2019, 154, 811–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanna, N.; Wszolek, M.F.; Mojtahed, A.; Nicaise, E.; Wu, B.; Gelpi-hammerschmidt, F.J.; Salari, K.; Dahl, D.M.; Blute, M.L.; Harisinghani, M.; et al. Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy Improves but Does Not Replace Standard Template Biopsy for the Detection of Prostate Cancer. J. Urol. 2019, 202, 944–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hugosson, J.; Månsson, M.; Wallström, J.; Axcrona, U.; Carlsson, S.V.; Egevad, L.; Geterud, K.; Khatami, A.; Kohestani, K.; Pihl, C.G.; et al. Prostate Cancer Screening with PSA and MRI Followed by Targeted Biopsy Only. N. Engl. J. Med. 2022, 387, 2126–2137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wegelin, O.; Exterkate, L.; van der Leest, M.; Kummer, J.A.; Vreuls, W.; de Bruin, P.C.; Bosch, J.L.H.R.; Barentsz, J.O.; Somford, D.M.; van Melick, H.H.E. 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, 582–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Venderink, W.; Van Luijtelaar, A.; Bomers, J.G.R.; Van Der Leest, M.; De Kaa, C.H.; Barentsz, J.O.; Novara, G. Results of Targeted Biopsy in Men with Magnetic Resonance Imaging Lesions Classified Equivocal, Likely or Highly Likely to Be Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. Eur. Urol. 2022, 73, 353–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, C.H.; Kim, C.K. Yield of Concurrent Systemic Biopsy during MRI-Targeted Biopsy According to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 in Patients with Suspected Prostate Cancer. Eur. Radiol. 2021, 31, 1667–1675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lazarovich, A.; Raviv, G.; Laitman, Y.; Portnoy, O.; Raz, O.; Dotan, Z.A.; Ramon, J.; Rosenzweig, B. Histology Results of Systematic Prostate Biopsies by In-Bore Magnetic Resonance Imaging vs. Transrectal Ultrasound. Can. Urol. Assoc. J. 2020, 15, 244–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Klotz, L. Active Surveillance in Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer. BJU Int. 2020, 125, 346–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Eggener, S. Focal Therapy for Localized Prostate Cancer. J. Urol. 2019, 20, 2–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Von Hardenberg, J.; Borkowetz, A.; Siegel, F.; Kornienko, K.; Westhoff, N.; Jordan, T.B.; Hoffmann, M.; Drerup, M.; Lieb, V.; Cash, H.; et al. Potential Candidates for Focal Therapy in Prostate Cancer in the Era of Magnetic Resonance Imaging—Targeted Biopsy: A Large Multicenter Cohort Study Johannes Bruendl e, y GESRU Academics Prostate Cancer Group in Cooperation with the Working. Eur. Urol. Focus 2023, 7, 1002–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gregg, J.R.; Borregales, L.D.; Choi, H.; Lozano, M.; Mcrae, S.E.; Venkatesan, A.M.; Davis, J.W.; Nogueras-gonzalez, G.M.; Pisters, L.L.; Ward, J.F. Oncologic and Quality of Life Outcomes. World J. Urol. 2023, 39, 3259–3264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Durand, M.; Barret, E.; Galiano, M.; Rozet, F.; Sanchez-salas, R.; Ahallal, Y.; Macek, P.; Gaya, J.; Cerruti, J.; Devilliers, H.; et al. Focal Cryoablation: A Treatment Option for Unilateral Low-Risk Prostate Cancer. BJU Int. 2014, 113, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Variable | All Patients No. % | Clinically Significant on SB No. % | Non-Clinically Significant on SB No. % | p Value 3 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age, years (IQR) | 68 | (62–71.5) | 68 | (64–73) | 67 | (61–70) | NS |
Prostate size, cc 1,2 | 56.8 | 35.3 | 49.6 | 29.7 | 60.7 | 37.6 | 0.05 |
Pre-biopsy PSA, ng/mL 1 | 8.7 | 8.2 | 8.8 | 5.9 | 8.7 | 9.3 | NS |
PSAD, ng/mL/cc 1 | 0.2 | 0.27 | 0.23 | 0.24 | 0.18 | 0.29 | NS |
DRE | NS | ||||||
Non-suspicious (T1c) | 139 | 73.5 | 44 | 65.7 | 95 | 77.9 | |
Suspicious (T2a) | 42 | 22.2 | 21 | 31.3 | 21 | 17.2 | |
NA | 8 | 4.2 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 4.9 | |
Previous biopsy | NS | ||||||
No | 73 | 38.6 | 31 | 46.3 | 42 | 34.4 | |
Yes | 113 | 59.8 | 34 | 50.7 | 79 | 64.8 | |
NA | 3 | 1.6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0.8 | |
5-alpha-reductase inhibitor | NS | ||||||
No | 169 | 89.4 | 60 | 89.6 | 109 | 89.3 | |
Yes | 15 | 7.9 | 5 | 7.5 | 10 | 8.2 | |
NA | 5 | 2.6 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2.5 | |
LND involvement on MRI | NS | ||||||
No | 132 | 69.8 | 48 | 71.6 | 84 | 68.9 | |
Yes | 5 | 2.6 | 1 | 1.5 | 4 | 3.3 | |
NA | 52 | 27.5 | 18 | 26.9 | 34 | 27.9 | |
Main lesion location | 0.008 4 | ||||||
PZ | 136 | 72 | 58 | 86.6 | 78 | 63.9 | |
TZ | 39 | 20.6 | 6 | 9 | 33 | 27 | |
PZ + TZ | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.8 | |
NA | 13 | 6.9 | 3 | 4.5 | 10 | 8.2 |
Variable | All Patients No. % | Clinically Significant on SB No. % | Non-Clinically Significant on SB No. % | p Value 3 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age, years (IQR) | 65.6 | (61.5–72) | 67.42 | (64–73) | 64.3 | (57.7–71.2) | NS |
Prostate size, cc 1,2 | 54 | 39.7 | 43.6 | 25.76 | 61.9 | 46.5 | 0.045 |
Pre-biopsy PSA, ng/mL 1 | 8.35 | 9.2 | 9.4 | 7.5 | 7.58 | 10.3 | NS |
PSAD, ng/mL/cc 1 | 0.246 | 0.38 | 0.28 | 0.3 | 0.21 | 0.46 | NS |
DRE | 0.05 | ||||||
Non-suspicious (T1c) | 55 | 75.3 | 19 | 61.3 | 36 | 85.7 | |
Suspicious (T2a) | 16 | 21.9 | 11 | 35.5 | 5 | 11.9 | |
NA | 2 | 2.7 | 1 | 3.2 | 1 | 2.4 | |
5-alpha-reductase inhibitor | 0.02 | ||||||
No | 69 | 95.8 | 27 | 87 | 42 | 100 | |
Yes | 3 | 4.1 | 3 | 9.7 | 0 | 0 | |
NA | 1 | 0.1 | 1 | 3.3 | 0 | 0 | |
LND involvement on MRI | NS | ||||||
No | 50 | 68.5 | 24 | 77.4 | 26 | 61.9 | |
Yes | 3 | 4.1 | 1 | 3.2 | 2 | 4.8 | |
NA | 20 | 27.4 | 6 | 19.4 | 14 | 33.3 | |
Main lesion location | 0.002 4 | ||||||
PZ | 54 | 74 | 29 | 93.5 | 25 | 59.52 | |
TZ | 14 | 19.2 | 1 | 3.2 | 13 | 30.95 | |
NA | 5 | 6.8 | 1 | 3.3 | 4 | 9.52 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lazarovich, A.; Drori, T.; Zilberman, D.E.; Portnoy, O.; Dotan, Z.A.; Rosenzweig, B. The Added Value of Systematic Sampling in In-Bore Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Prostate Biopsy. J. Pers. Med. 2023, 13, 1373. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13091373
Lazarovich A, Drori T, Zilberman DE, Portnoy O, Dotan ZA, Rosenzweig B. The Added Value of Systematic Sampling in In-Bore Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Prostate Biopsy. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2023; 13(9):1373. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13091373
Chicago/Turabian StyleLazarovich, Alon, Tomer Drori, Dorit E. Zilberman, Orith Portnoy, Zohar A. Dotan, and Barak Rosenzweig. 2023. "The Added Value of Systematic Sampling in In-Bore Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Prostate Biopsy" Journal of Personalized Medicine 13, no. 9: 1373. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13091373