US lesion visibility predicts clinically significant upgrade of prostate cancer by systematic biopsy

Purpose To identify predictors of when systematic biopsy leads to a higher overall prostate cancer grade compared to targeted biopsy. Methods and materials 918 consecutive patients who underwent prostate MRI followed by MRI/US fusion biopsy and systematic biopsies from January 2015 to November 2019 at a single academic medical center were retrospectively identified. The outcome was upgrade of PCa by systematic biopsy, defined as cases when systematic biopsy led to a Gleason Grade (GG) ≥ 2 and greater than the maximum GG detected by targeted biopsy. Generalized linear regression and conditional logistic regression were used to analyze predictors of upgrade. Results At the gland level, the presence of an US-visible lesion was associated with decreased upgrade (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.44–0.93, p = 0.02). At the sextant level, upgrade was more likely to occur through the biopsy of sextants with MRI-visible lesions (OR 2.58, 95% CI 1.87–3.63, p < 0.001), US-visible lesions (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.14–2.93, p = 0.01), and ipsilateral lesions (OR 3.89, 95% CI 2.36–6.42, p < 0.001). Conclusion Systematic biopsy is less valuable in patients with an US-visible lesion, and more likely to detect upgrades in sextants with imaging abnormalities. An approach that takes additional samples from regions with imaging abnormalities may provide analogous information to systematic biopsy.

The best prostate biopsy sampling system—fusion and systematic biopsy: A single center experience

Background: Prostate cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in men. The diagnostic accuracy in prostate cancer can be increased by employing a preliminary multiparametric MRI followed by a fusion-targeted biopsy. Methods: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of fusion-targeted biopsy with the standard systematic biopsy in prostate cancer patients, we enrolled 139 patients on which we performed 139 prostate biopsies consisting of three targeted samples followed by 12 regular systematic samples. Based on histology, we analyzed the diagnostic performance of the two methods. Results: Both methods were equally good at detecting clinically significant cancer (83.3%, 50/60), while systematic biopsy detected more clinically insignificant cancers. However, the best diagnostic performance is obtained by combining the two methods. Conclusion: The two methods are best seen as synergistic, and the addition of fusion biopsy can be used to detect more clinically significant prostate cancers than systematic biopsy alone.

How to Improve TRUS-Guided Target Biopsy following Prostate MRI

TRUS is a basic imaging modality when radiologists or urologists perform cognitive fusion or image fusion biopsy. This modality plays the role of the background images to add to an operator’s cognitive function or MRI images. Operators need to know how to make TRUS protocols for lesion detection or targeting. Tumor location, size, and shape on TRUS are different from those on MRI because the scan axis is different. TRUS findings of peripheral or transition tumors are not well known to radiologists and urologists. Moreover, it remains unclear if systematic biopsy is necessary after a tumor is targeted. The purpose of this review is to introduce new TRUS protocols, new imaging features, new biopsy techniques, and to assess the necessity of systematic biopsy for improving biopsy outcomes.

The Role of Prostate Combination Biopsy Consisting of Targeted and Additional Systematic Biopsy

Background: To identify the role of combination biopsy, which consists of both targeted and additional systematic cores, in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients with PSA levels 2.5–15 ng/mL who have a suspicious prostate lesion (with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) ≥ 3) on multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) between January 2016 and December 2018. We analyzed biopsy results by PI-RADS score and biopsy methods (systematic, targeted, and combination biopsy). Results: Of the 711 total patients, an average of 4.0 ± 1.8 targeted and 8.6 ± 3.1 additional systematic biopsies were performed. The additional systematic biopsies were sampled outside the targeted biopsy area. The combination biopsies detected more csPCa (201 patients, 28.3%) than did the targeted (175 patients, 24.6%) or systematic (124 patients, 17.4%) biopsies alone (p < 0.001). In the initial biopsy samples, there was a 7% increase in the detection of csPCa than in targeted biopsy (62% to 69%). It increased by 11% in repeat biopsy (46% to 57%). There was no statistical significance in both groups (p = 0.3174). Conclusions: Combination biopsy has the benefit of detecting csPCa in both initial and repeat biopsy when there is a suspicious lesion on mpMRI.