Which Protocol for Prostate Biopsies in Patients with a Positive MRI? Interest of Systematic Biopsies by Sectors

Overview

Journal Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis

Specialties Oncology
Urology

Date 2023 Dec 19

PMID 38114598

Authors

A Zambon

T-A Nguyen

A Fourcade

T Segalen

K Saout

C Deruelle

V Joulin

V Tissot

L Doucet

G Fournier

A Valeri

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Current prostate biopsy (PBx) protocol for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis is to perform systematic biopsies (SBx) combined with targeted biopsies (TBx) in case of positive MRI (i.e. PI-RADS ≥ 3). To assess the utility of performing SBx in combination with TBx, we determined the added value of SBx brought to the diagnosis of PCa according to their sextant location and MRI target characteristics.

Methods: In our local prospectively collected database, we conducted a single-center retrospective study including all patients with a suspicion of PCa, who underwent transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) prostate biopsies (PBx) with a prior MRI and a single lesion classified as PI-RADS ≥ 3. We have characterized the SBx according to their location on MRI: same sextant (S-SBx), adjacent sextant (A-SBx), ipsilateral side (I-SBx) and contralateral side (C-SBx). The added value of SBx and TBx was defined as any upgrading to significant PCa (csPCa) (ISUP ≥2).

Results: 371 patients were included in the study. The added value of SBx was 10% overall. Regarding the lesion location and the SBx sextant, the added value of SBx was: 5.1% for S-SBx, 5.4% for A-SBx, 4.9% for I-SBx and 1.9% for C-SBx. The overall added value of SBx was 6.8% for PI-RADS 3 lesions, 14% for PI-RADS 4 lesions and 6.7% for PI-RADS 5 lesions (p = 0.063). The added value of SBx for contralateral side was 1.9% (2/103), 3.1% (5/163) and 0% (0/105) for PI-RADS 3, PI-RADS 4 and PI-RADS 5 lesions, respectively (p = 0,4). The added value of SBx was lower when the number of TBx was higher (OR 0.57; CI 95% 0.37-0.85; p = 0.007).

Conclusions: Our results suggest that the utility of performing SBx in the contralateral lobe toward the MRI lesion was very low, supporting that they might be avoided.

Citing Articles

A Visual Standardized (ViSta) map integrating imaging (MRI), biopsy findings and Specimen Prostate Cancer location.

Ficarra V, Sorce G, Martini M, Matoso A, De Nunzio C Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2025; .

PMID: 39920244 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-025-00946-z.

Targeted and perilesional biopsy: triumphs and cautions.

Jiang X, Ma B, Xu Y Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2025; .

PMID: 39870905 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-025-00945-0.

Assessing Micturition, sexual function, and endoscopic outcomes one year after Aquablation: a single center prospective study.

Amparore D, De Cillis S, Quara A, Sica M, Ortenzi M, Piramide F World J Urol. 2024; 43(1):20.

PMID: 39653839 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-024-05380-9.

Transperineal laser ablation (TPLA) of the prostate for benign prostatic obstruction: the first 100 patients cohort of a prospective, single-center study.

Lo Re M, Polverino P, Rivetti A, Pecoraro A, Saladino M, Pezzoli M World J Urol. 2024; 42(1):402.

PMID: 38985193 PMC: 11236842. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-024-05077-z.

A novel biopsy scheme for prostate cancer: targeted and regional systematic biopsy.

He Y, Fan Y, Song H, Shen Q, Ruan M, Chen Y BMC Urol. 2024; 24(1):85.

PMID: 38614971 PMC: 11015685. DOI: 10.1186/s12894-024-01461-4.

References

Rouviere O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, Claudon M, Roy C, Mege-Lechevallier F . 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. 2018; 20(1):100-109. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2. View

van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israel B, Hendriks R, Padhani A, Hoogenboom M . Head-to-head Comparison of Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Prostate Biopsy Versus Multiparametric Prostate Resonance Imaging with Subsequent Magnetic Resonance-guided Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Men with Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen: A Large.... Eur Urol. 2018; 75(4):570-578. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023. View

Drost F, Osses D, Nieboer D, Bangma C, Steyerberg E, Roobol M . Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging, with or Without Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy, and Systematic Biopsy for Detecting Prostate Cancer: A Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2019; 77(1):78-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.06.023. View

Loeb S, Bjurlin M, Nicholson J, Tammela T, Penson D, Carter H . Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014; 65(6):1046-55. PMC: 4113338. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.062. View

Chowdhury R, Abbas A, Idriz S, Hoy A, Rutherford E, Smart J . Should warfarin or aspirin be stopped prior to prostate biopsy? An analysis of bleeding complications related to increasing sample number regimes. Clin Radiol. 2012; 67(12):e64-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2012.08.005. View

Eineluoto J, Jarvinen P, Kilpelainen T, Lahdensuo K, Kalalahti I, Sandeman K . Patient Experience of Systematic Versus Fusion Prostate Biopsies. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019; 1(3):202-207. DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.02.005. View

Kalalahti I, Huotari K, Erickson A, Petas A, Vasarainen H, Rannikko A . Infectious complications after transrectal MRI-targeted and systematic prostate biopsy. World J Urol. 2022; 40(9):2261-2265. PMC: 9427867. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-022-04104-1. View

Bryk D, Llukani E, Taneja S, Rosenkrantz A, Huang W, Lepor H . The Role of Ipsilateral and Contralateral Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Men With Unilateral Magnetic Resonance Imaging Lesion Undergoing Magnetic Resonance Imaging-ultrasound Fusion-targeted Prostate Biopsy. Urology. 2016; 102:178-182. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.11.017. View

Cata E, Andras I, Ferro M, Kadula P, Leucuta D, Musi G . Systematic sampling during MRI-US fusion prostate biopsy can overcome errors of targeting-prospective single center experience after 300 cases in first biopsy setting. Transl Androl Urol. 2021; 9(6):2510-2518. PMC: 7807351. DOI: 10.21037/tau-20-1001. View

10.

Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz A, Haider M, Padhani A, Villeirs G, Macura K . Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur Urol. 2019; 76(3):340-351. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033. View

11.

Epstein J, Egevad L, Amin M, Delahunt B, Srigley J, Humphrey P . The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System. Am J Surg Pathol. 2015; 40(2):244-52. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530. View

12.

Delloglio P, Stabile A, Soligo M, Brembilla G, Esposito A, Gandaglia G . There Is No Way to Avoid Systematic Prostate Biopsies in Addition to Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsies. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019; 3(1):112-118. DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2019.03.002. View

13.

Ploussard G, Borgmann H, Briganti A, De Visschere P, Futterer J, Gandaglia G . Positive pre-biopsy MRI: are systematic biopsies still useful in addition to targeted biopsies?. World J Urol. 2018; 37(2):243-251. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2399-z. View

14.

Borghesi M, Ahmed H, Nam R, Schaeffer E, Schiavina R, Taneja S . Complications After Systematic, Random, and Image-guided Prostate Biopsy. Eur Urol. 2016; 71(3):353-365. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.004. View

15.

Ahdoot M, Wilbur A, Reese S, Lebastchi A, Mehralivand S, Gomella P . MRI-Targeted, Systematic, and Combined Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2020; 382(10):917-928. PMC: 7323919. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910038. View

16.

Le Nobin J, Orczyk C, Deng F, Melamed J, Rusinek H, Taneja S . Prostate tumour volumes: evaluation of the agreement between magnetic resonance imaging and histology using novel co-registration software. BJU Int. 2014; 114(6b):E105-E112. PMC: 4714042. DOI: 10.1111/bju.12750. View

17.

Padhani A, Weinreb J, Rosenkrantz A, Villeirs G, Turkbey B, Barentsz J . Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Steering Committee: PI-RADS v2 Status Update and Future Directions. Eur Urol. 2018; 75(3):385-396. PMC: 6292742. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.05.035. View

18.

Brisbane W, Priester A, Ballon J, Kwan L, Delfin M, Felker E . Targeted Prostate Biopsy: Umbra, Penumbra, and Value of Perilesional Sampling. Eur Urol. 2022; 82(3):303-310. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.01.008. View

19.

Lahoud J, Doan P, Kim L, Patel M . Perilesional Biopsies Increase Detection of Significant Prostate Cancer in Men with PI-RADS 4/5 Lesions: Validation of the PI-RADS Steering Committee Recommendation. Eur Urol. 2021; 80(2):260-261. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.01.039. View

20.

Gunzel K, Haas M, Maxeiner A, Stephan C, Buckendahl J, Asbach P . Predictive Parameters Identifying Men Eligible for a Sole MRI/Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Targeted Biopsy without an Additional Systematic Biopsy. Urol Int. 2016; 98(1):15-21. DOI: 10.1159/000449258. View