Who Can Avoid Systematic Biopsy Without Missing Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Men Who Undergo Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Biopsy?

This clinical guideline focuses on: 1) the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPC) in patients with an elevated risk of CSPC and who are biopsy-naïve; and 2) the use of mpMRI in diagnosing CSPC in patients with a persistently elevated risk of having CSPC and who have a negative transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided systematic biopsy.The methods of the Practice Guideline Development Cycle were used. MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library (1997‒April 2014), main guideline websites, and relevant annual meeting abstracts (2011‒2014) were searched. Internal and external reviews were conducted.The two main recommendations are:Recommendation 1: In patients with an elevated risk of CSPC (according to prostate-specific antigen [PSA] levels and/or nomograms) who are biopsy-naïve: mpMRI followed by targeted biopsy (biopsy directed at cancer-suspicious foci detected with mpMRI) should not be considered the standard of care; data from future research studies are essential and should receive high-impact trial funding to determine the value of mpMRI in this clinical context.Recommendation 2:In patients who had a prior negative TRUS-guided systematic biopsy and demonstrate an increasing risk of having CSPC since prior biopsy (e.g., continued rise in PSA and/or change in findings from digital rectal examination): mpMRI followed by targeted biopsy may be considered to help in detecting more CSPC patients compared with repeated TRUS-guided systematic biopsy.

Download Full-text

Optimal PSA Threshold for Obtaining MRI-Fusion Biopsy in Biopsy-Naïve Patients

Prostate Cancer ◽

10.1155/2021/5531511 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 2021 ◽

pp. 1-7

Author(s):

Luke L. Wang ◽

Brandon L. Henslee ◽

Peter B. Sam ◽

Chad A. LaGrange ◽

Shawna L. Boyle

Keyword(s):

Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽

Prostate Cancer ◽

Magnetic Resonance ◽

Prostate Specific Antigen ◽

Cancer Detection ◽

Specific Antigen ◽

Targeted Biopsy ◽

Resonance Imaging ◽

Fusion Biopsy ◽

Clinically Significant

Objective. The study investigates the prostate-specific antigen threshold for adding targeted, software-based, magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy during a standard 12-core biopsy in biopsy-naïve patients. It secondarily explores whether the targeted biopsy is necessary in setting of abnormal digital rectal examination. Methods. 260 patients with suspected localized prostate cancer with no prior biopsy underwent prostate magnetic resonance imaging and were found to have Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score ≥ 3 lesion(s). All 260 patients underwent standard 12-core biopsy and targeted biopsy during the same session. Clinically significant cancer was Gleason ≥ 3 + 4. Results. Percentages of patients with prostate-specific antigen 0–1.99, 2–3.99, 4–4.99, 5–5.99, 6–9.99, and ≥ 10 were 3.0%, 4.7%, 20.8%, 16.9%, 37.7%, and 16.9%, respectively. Cumulative frequency of clinically significant prostate cancer increased with the addition of targeted biopsy compared with standard biopsy alone across all prostate-specific antigen ranges. The difference in clinically significant cancer detection between targeted plus standard biopsy compared to standard biopsy alone becomes statistically significant at prostate-specific antigen >4.3 ( p = 0.031 ). At this threshold, combination biopsy detected 20 clinically significant prostate cancers, while standard detected 14 with 88% sensitivity and 20% specificity. Excluding targeted biopsy in setting of a positive digital rectal exam would save 12.3% magnetic resonance imaging and miss 1.8% clinically significant cancers in our cohort. Conclusions. In biopsy-naïve patients, at prostate-specific antigen >4.3, there is a significant increase in clinically significant prostate cancer detection when targeted biopsy is added to standard biopsy. Obtaining standard biopsy alone in patients with abnormal digital rectal examinations would miss 1.8% clinically significant cancers in our cohort.

Download Full-text