Impact of changing PI-RADS cutoff on prostate cancer detection by MRI cognitive fusion biopsy in biopsy-naïve patients
Tóm tắt
Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging may improve the detection of prostate cancer. The aim of this work is to compare between PI-RADS 3–5 and PI-RADS 4–5 as a threshold for targeted prostatic biopsy. This is a prospective clinical study that included 40 biopsy-naïve patients referred for prostate biopsy. Patients underwent prebiopsy multi-parametric (mp-MRI), followed by 12-core transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy and cognitive MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy from each detected lesion. The primary endpoint was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the PI-RAD 3–4 versus PI-RADS 4–5 lesion by mpMRI for prostate cancer detection in biopsy-naive men. The overall prostate cancer detection rate and the clinically significant cancer detection rate were 42.5% and 35%, respectively. Targeted biopsies from PI-RADS 3–5 lesions showed a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 44%, positive predictive value of 51.7%, and negative predictive value of 100%. Restricting targeted biopsies to PI-RADS 4–5 lesions resulted in a decrease in sensitivity and negative predictive value to 73.3% and 86.2%, respectively, while specificity and positive predictive value were increased to 100% for both parameters which was statistically significant (P value < 0.0001 and P value = 0.004, respectively). Limiting the TBs to PI-RADS 4–5 lesions improves the performance of mp-MRI in the detection of prostate cancer especially aggressive tumors.
Tài liệu tham khảo
van Hove A, Savoie PH, Maurin C, Brunelle S, Gravis G, Salem N, et al. Comparison of image-guided targeted biopsies versus systematic randomized biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic literature review of well-designed studies. World J Urol. 2014;32(4):847–58.
Rais-Bahrami S, Siddiqui MM, Turkbey B, Stamatakis L, Logan J, Hoang AN, et al. Utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging suspicion levels for detecting prostate cancer. J Urol. 2013;190(5):1721–7.
Porpiglia F, Manfredi M, Mele F, Cossu M, Bollito E, Veltri A, et al. Diagnostic pathway with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging versus standard pathway: results from a randomized prospective study in biopsy-naïve patients with suspected prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2017;72(2):282–8.
Mottet N, Van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU guidelines. In: EAU Annual Congress Copenhagen, Denmark. 2019.
Raskolnikov D, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, Rastinehad AR, Choyke PL, Wood BJ, et al. Current ability of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy to improve the detection of prostate cancer. Urol Pract. 2014;1(1):13–21.
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69(1):16–40.
Ahmed HU, Hu Y, Carter T, Arumainayagam N, Lecornet E, Freeman A, et al. Characterizing clinically significant prostate cancer using template prostate mapping biopsy. J Urol. 2011;186(2):458–64.
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40(2):244–52.
Stabile A, Giganti F, Rosenkrantz AB, Taneja SS, Villeirs G, Gill IS, et al. Multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis: current status and future directions. Nat Rev Urol. 2020;17(1):41–61.
Moldovan PC, Van den Broeck T, Sylvester R, Marconi L, Bellmunt J, van den Bergh RC, et al. What is the negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in excluding prostate cancer at biopsy? A systematic review and meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol. 2017;72(2):250–66.
Sathianathen NJ, Omer A, Harriss E, Davies L, Kasivisvanathan V, Punwani S, et al. Negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in the prostate imaging reporting and data system era: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2020;78(3):402–14.
Maggi M, Panebianco V, Mosca A, Salciccia S, Gentilucci A, Di Pierro G, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system 3 category cases at multiparametric magnetic resonance for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus. 2020;6(3):463–78.
Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH. Diagnostic performance of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 for detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2017;72(2):177–88.
Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, Claudon M, Roy C, Mège-Lechevallier F, et al. 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. 2019;20(1):100–9.
Marenco J, Orczyk C, Collins T, Moore C, Emberton M. Role of MRI in planning radical prostatectomy: what is the added value? World J Urol. 2019;37(7):1289–92.
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(19):1767–77.
Loeb S, Bjurlin MA, Nicholson J, Tammela TL, Penson DF, Carter HB, et al. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014;65(6):1046–55.