Background: Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-directed biopsy for prostate cancer (PC) diagnosis improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPC) and decreases the rate of over-diagnosis of insignificant disease. The aim of this study was to investigate the value of mpMRI combined with prostate specific antigen density (PSAD) in the decision making related to the biopsy. Methods: mpMRI and mpMRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion targeted biopsies with subsequent systematic biopsies were performed in 397 patients (223 biopsy-naïve and 174 with a previous biopsy). Detection rates of (CSPC) and insignificant PC were stratified using the PIRADS score, and the number of avoidable biopsies and missed (CSPC) were plotted against PSAD values of 0.1–0.5 ng/mL2. Results: PIRADS <3 and PSAD <0.2 ng/mL2 were the safest criteria for not performing a biopsy. When applied to the biopsy-naïve group, 21.5% (48/223) of the biopsies could have been avoided and 3.7% (3/82) of CSPC would have been missed. In the repeat biopsy group, 12.6% (22/174) of biopsies could have been avoided and 6.9% (4/58) of (CSPC) would have been missed. Conclusions: A combination of mpMRI and PSAD might reduce the number of biopsies performed with the cost of missing <4% of CSPC.

Keywords:
Biopsy, Fusion, Magnetic resonance imaging, Prostate cancer, Prostate specific antigen density
1.
Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent.
Eur Urol
. 2017 Apr;71(4):618–29.
2.
Ukimura O, Coleman JA, de la Taille A, Emberton M, Epstein JI, Freedland SJ, et al. Contemporary role of systematic prostate biopsies: indications, techniques, and implications for patient care.
Eur Urol
. 2013 Feb;63(2):214–30.
3.
Padhani AR, Weinreb J, Rosenkrantz AB, Villeirs G, Turkbey B, Barentsz J. Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Steering Committee. PI-RADS v2 Status Update and Future Directions.
Eur Urol
. 2019 Mar;75(3):385–96.
4.
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al.; PROMIS study group. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study.
Lancet
. 2017 Feb;389(10071):815–22.
5.
Benson MC, Whang IS, Pantuck A, Ring K, Kaplan SA, Olsson CA, et al. Prostate specific antigen density: a means of distinguishing benign prostatic hypertrophy and prostate cancer.
J Urol
. 1992 Mar;147(3 Pt 2):815–6.
6.
Venderink W, van Luijtelaar A, Bomers JG, van der Leest M, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, Barentsz JO, et al. 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
. 2017.
7.
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al.; European Society of Urogenital Radiology. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012.
Eur Radiol
. 2012 Apr;22(4):746–57.
8.
Jelidi A, Ohana M, Labani A, Alemann G, Lang H, Roy C. Prostate cancer diagnosis: efficacy of a simple electromagnetic MRI-TRUS fusion method to target biopsies.
Eur J Radiol
. 2017 Jan;86:127–34.
9.
Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer.
JAMA
. 1994 Feb;271(5):368–74.
10.
Simmons LA, Kanthabalan A, Arya M, Briggs T, Barratt D, Charman SC, et al. The PICTURE study: diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI in men requiring a repeat prostate biopsy.
Br J Cancer
. 2017 Apr;116(9):1159–65.
11.
Kotb AF, Spaner S, Crump T, Hyndman ME. The role of mpMRI and PSA density in patients with an initial negative prostatic biopsy.
World J Urol
. 2018 Dec;36(12):2021–5.
12.
Schoots IG. MRI in early prostate cancer detection: how to manage indeterminate or equivocal PI-RADS 3 lesions?
Transl Androl Urol
. 2018 Feb;7(1):70–82.
13.
Distler FA, Radtke JP, Bonekamp D, Kesch C, Schlemmer HP, Wieczorek K, et al. The Value of PSA Density in Combination with PI-RADSTM for the Accuracy of Prostate Cancer Prediction.
J Urol
. 2017 Sep;198(3):575–82.
14.
Washino S, Okochi T, Saito K, Konishi T, Hirai M, Kobayashi Y, et al. Combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density predicts biopsy outcome in prostate biopsy naïve patients.
BJU Int
. 2017 Feb;119(2):225–33.
15.
Hansen NL, Barrett T, Koo B, Doble A, Gnanapragasam V, Warren A, et al. The influence of prostate-specific antigen density on positive and negative predictive values of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect Gleason score 7–10 prostate cancer in a repeat biopsy setting.
BJU Int
. 2017 May;119(5):724–30.
16.
Brizmohun Appayya M, Adshead J, Ahmed HU, Allen C, Bainbridge A, Barrett T, et al. National implementation of multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection - recommendations from a UK consensus meeting.
BJU Int
. 2018 Jul;122(1):13–25.
17.
Alberts AR, Roobol MJ, Drost FH, van Leenders GJ, Bokhorst LP, Bangma CH, et al. Risk-stratification based on magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen density may reduce unnecessary follow-up biopsy procedures in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer.
BJU Int
. 2017 Oct;120(4):511–9.
18.
Esses SJ, Taneja SS, Rosenkrantz AB. Imaging Facilities’ Adherence to PI-RADS v2 Minimum Technical Standards for the Performance of Prostate MRI.
Acad Radiol
. 2018 Feb;25(2):188–95.
19.
Sonn GA, Fan RE, Ghanouni P, Wang NN, Brooks JD, Loening AM, et al. Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Interpretation Varies Substantially Across Radiologists.
Eur Urol Focus
. 2017 Dec;S2405-4569(17)30266-3.
© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel
2019
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.