Introduction and Objectives: Decision-making to perform prostate biopsy should include individual risk assessment. Patients classified as low risk by the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator are advised to forego biopsy (PBx). There is concern about missing clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). A clear pathway for follow-up is needed. Material and Methods: Data for 111 consecutive patients were collected. Patients were encouraged to adhere to a PSA-density-based safety net after PBx was omitted. Cut off values indicating a re-evaluation were PSA density >0.15 ng/mL/ccm in PBx-naïve patients and >0.2 ng/mL/ccm in men with past-PBx. Primary endpoint was whether men had their PSA taken regularly. Secondary endpoint was whether a new multiparametric MRI was performed when PSA-density increased. Tertiary endpoint was whether biopsy was performed when risk stratification revealed an increased risk. Results: Median follow-up was 12 months (IQR 9–15 months). The primary endpoint was reached by 97.2% (n = 106). The secondary endpoint was reached by 30% (n = 3). The tertiary endpoint was reached by 50% (n = 2). Histopathologic analyses revealed csPCa in none of these cases. Risk stratification did not change (p = 0.187) with the majority of patients (89.2%, n = 99). Conclusion: The concern of missing csPCa when omitting PBx in the risk-stratified pathway may be negated. Changes in risk stratification during follow-up should lead to subsequent PBx. We suggest implementing a safety net based on PSA density and digital rectal examination (DRE).

1.
Barentsz
JO
,
Weinreb
JC
,
Verma
S
,
Thoeny
HC
,
Tempany
CM
,
Shtern
F
.
Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 guidelines for multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and recommendations for use
.
Eur Urol
.
2016
;
69
(
1
):
41
9
.
2.
Mottet
N
,
van den Bergh
RCN
,
Briers
E
,
Van den Broeck
T
,
Cumberbatch
MG
,
De Santis
M
.
EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer-2020 update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent
.
Eur Urol
.
2021
;
79
(
2
):
243
62
.
3.
Carter
HB
,
Albertsen
PC
,
Barry
MJ
,
Etzioni
R
,
Freedland
SJ
,
Greene
KL
.
Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA Guideline
.
J Urol
.
2013
;
190
(
2
):
419
26
.
4.
Pullen
L
,
Radtke
JP
,
Wiesenfarth
M
,
Roobol
MJ
,
Verbeek
JFM
,
Wetter
A
.
External validation of novel magnetic resonance imaging-based models for prostate cancer prediction
.
BJU Int
.
2020
;
125
(
3
):
407
16
.
5.
Chen
R
,
Verbeek
JFM
,
Yang
Y
,
Song
Z
,
Sun
Y
,
Roobol
MJ
.
Comparing the prediction of prostate biopsy outcome using the Chinese Prostate Cancer Consortium (CPCC) risk calculator and the asian adapted Rotterdam European Randomized Study of screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculator in Chinese and European men
.
World J Urol
.
2021
;
39
(
1
):
73
80
.
6.
Gayet
M
,
Mannaerts
CK
,
Nieboer
D
,
Beerlage
HP
,
Wijkstra
H
,
Mulders
PFA
.
Prediction of prostate cancer: external validation of the ERSPC risk calculator in a contemporary Dutch clinical cohort
.
Eur Urol Focus
.
2018
;
4
(
2
):
228
34
.
7.
Mannaerts
CK
,
Gayet
M
,
Verbeek
JF
,
Engelbrecht
MRW
,
Savci-Heijink
CD
,
Jager
GJ
.
Prostate cancer risk assessment in biopsy-naive patients: the Rotterdam prostate cancer risk calculator in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion biopsy and systematic TRUS biopsy
.
Eur Urol Oncol
.
2018
;
1
(
2
):
109
17
.
8.
Pereira-Azevedo
N
,
Osorio
L
,
Fraga
A
,
Roobol
MJ
.
Rotterdam prostate cancer risk calculator: development and usability testing of the mobile phone app
.
JMIR Cancer
.
2017
;
3
(
1
):
e1
.
9.
Tully
KH
,
Bahlburg
H
,
Berg
S
,
Hanske
J
,
von Landenberg
N
,
Noldus
J
.
Changing the prostate cancer detection paradigm: clinical application of European association of Urology guideline-recommended magnetic resonance imaging-based risk stratification in men with suspected prostate cancer
.
Eur Urol Focus
.
2021
;
7
(
5
):
1011
8
.
10.
Norris
JM
,
Carmona Echeverria
LM
,
Bott
SRJ
,
Brown
LC
,
Burns-Cox
N
,
Dudderidge
T
.
What type of prostate cancer is systematically overlooked by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? An analysis from the PROMIS cohort
.
Eur Urol
.
2020
;
78
(
2
):
163
70
.
11.
Falagario
UG
,
Martini
A
,
Wajswol
E
,
Treacy
PJ
,
Ratnani
P
,
Jambor
I
.
Avoiding unnecessary Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and biopsies: negative and positive predictive value of MRI according to prostate-specific antigen density, 4Kscore and risk calculators
.
Eur Urol Oncol
.
2020
;
3
(
5
):
700
4
.
12.
Verma
A
,
St Onge
J
,
Dhillon
K
,
Chorneyko
A
.
PSA density improves prediction of prostate cancer
.
Can J Urol
.
2014
;
21
(
3
):
7312
21
.
13.
Nordstrom
T
,
Akre
O
,
Aly
M
,
Gronberg
H
,
Eklund
M
.
Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) density in the diagnostic algorithm of prostate cancer
.
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis
.
2018
;
21
(
1
):
57
63
.
14.
Distler
FA
,
Radtke
JP
,
Bonekamp
D
,
Kesch
C
,
Schlemmer
HP
,
Wieczorek
K
.
The value of PSA density in combination with PI-RADS for the accuracy of prostate cancer prediction
.
J Urol
.
2017
;
198
(
3
):
575
82
.
15.
Boschheidgen
M
,
Schimmoller
L
,
Doerfler
S
,
Al-Monajjed
R
,
Morawitz
J
,
Ziayee
F
.
Single center analysis of an advisable control interval for follow-up of patients with PI-RADS category 3 in multiparametric MRI of the prostate
.
Sci Rep
.
2022
;
12
(
1
):
6746
.
16.
Hansen
NL
,
Barrett
T
,
Koo
B
,
Doble
A
,
Gnanapragasam
V
,
Warren
A
.
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
;
119
(
5
):
724
30
.
17.
Bokhorst
LP
,
Alberts
AR
,
Rannikko
A
,
Valdagni
R
,
Pickles
T
,
Kakehi
Y
.
Compliance rates with the Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) protocol and disease reclassification in noncompliers
.
Eur Urol
.
2015
;
68
(
5
):
814
21
.
18.
Wallner
LP
,
Frencher
SK
,
Hsu
JW
,
Chao
CR
,
Nichol
MB
,
Loo
RK
.
Changes in serum prostate-specific antigen levels and the identification of prostate cancer in a large managed care population
.
BJU Int
.
2013
;
111
(
8
):
1245
52
.
19.
Giri
VN
,
Beebe-Dimmer
JL
.
Familial prostate cancer
.
Semin Oncol
.
2016
;
43
:
560
5
.
20.
Orsted
DD
,
Bojesen
SE
,
Kamstrup
PR
,
Nordestgaard
BG
.
Long-term prostate-specific antigen velocity in improved classification of prostate cancer risk and mortality
.
Eur Urol
.
2013
;
64
(
3
):
384
93
.
21.
Westphalen
AC
,
McCulloch
CE
,
Anaokar
JM
,
Arora
S
,
Barashi
NS
,
Barentsz
JO
.
Variability of the positive predictive value of PI-RADS for prostate MRI across 26 centers: experience of the society of abdominal radiology prostate cancer disease-focused panel
.
Radiology
.
2020
;
296
(
1
):
76
84
.
22.
Stolk
TT
,
de Jong
IJ
,
Kwee
TC
,
Luiting
HB
,
Mahesh
SVK
,
Doornweerd
BHJ
.
False positives in PIRADS (V2) 3, 4, and 5 lesions: relationship with reader experience and zonal location
.
Abdom Radiol
.
2019
;
44
(
3
):
1044
51
.
23.
Giganti
F
,
Allen
C
,
Emberton
M
,
Moore
CM
,
Kasivisvanathan
V
PRECISION study group
.
Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL): a new quality control scoring system for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate from the PRECISION trial
.
Eur Urol Oncol
.
2020
;
3
(
5
):
615
9
.
24.
Marenco Jimenez
JL
,
Claps
F
,
Ramon-Borja
JC
,
Mascaros Martinez
JM
,
Gutierrez
AW
,
Lozano
AGF
.
Rebiopsy rate after transperineal or transrectal prostate biopsy
.
Prostate Int
.
2021
;
9
(
2
):
78
81
.
25.
Pereira-Azevedo
N
,
Braga
I
,
Verbeek
JF
,
Osorio
L
,
Cavadas
V
,
Fraga
A
.
Prospective evaluation on the effect of interobserver variability of digital rectal examination on the performance of the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator
.
Int J Urol
.
2017
;
24
(
12
):
826
32
.
You do not currently have access to this content.