Prioritizing Precision: Detection of Prostate Cancer Using Mri Guided Fusion Needle Biopsy Across the Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaborative

Overview

Journal Am J Clin Exp Urol

Specialty Urology

Date 2024 Nov 25

PMID 39584010

Authors

Dennis Head

Ako A Ako

Serge Ginzburg

Eric Singer

Bruce Jacobs

Claudette Fonshell

Adam Reese

Edouard Trabulsi

Jeffrey Tomaszewski

John Danella

Laurence Belkoff

Robert Uzzo

Jay D Raman

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: Targeted prostate biopsies are increasingly being performed by urologists in the United States including those in the Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaborative, a physician-led data-sharing and quality improvement collaborative. To evaluate the performance of MRI guided fusion needle prostate biopsies in the collaborative, we analyzed the variability by practice in rates of detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and patient characteristics associated with detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Methods: We analyzed 857 first-time MRI fusion biopsy procedures performed at five practices (minimum 20 procedures) between 2015 and 2019. We used chi-square analysis for baseline patient characteristics and Grade Group (GG) ≥ 3 tumor detection rates by practice. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of clinically significant cancer detection when adjusting for baseline patient characteristics.

Results: Approximately 15% of men undergoing targeted MRI guided biopsy were ≤ 59 years old. Median prostate specific antigen (PSA) was 6.8 ng/ml. Detection rates for GG ≥ 3 tumors ranged from 14.3% to 28.3% (P = 0.02) across practices. However, the odds of GG ≥ 3 tumor detection did not differ significantly between practices after adjusting for clinical and radiographic factors. Overall, increased likelihood of detecting a GG ≥ 3 tumor was associated with increased age, DRE abnormalities, higher PSA, smaller gland volume and PI-RADS ≥ 4 MRI lesions. There was an 81% concordance rate between PI-RADS ≥ 4 and Gleason grade ≥ 3 prostate cancer.

Conclusion: We demonstrate the value of obtaining pre-biopsy MRI given high concordance between presence of suspicious lesions and MRI-targeted biopsy detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Variability of baseline patient characteristics among practices may account for the observed differences in clinically significant cancer detection rates. These findings can aid standardization and quality improvement efforts within the collaborative.

References

Al-Khalil S, Ibilibor C, Cammack J, de Riese W . Association of prostate volume with incidence and aggressiveness of prostate cancer. Res Rep Urol. 2016; 8:201-205. PMC: 5087757. DOI: 10.2147/RRU.S117963. View

Pinto P, Chung P, Rastinehad A, Baccala Jr A, Kruecker J, Benjamin C . Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol. 2011; 186(4):1281-5. PMC: 3193933. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.05.078. View

Oerther B, Engel H, Bamberg F, Sigle A, Gratzke C, Benndorf M . Cancer detection rates of the PI-RADSv2.1 assessment categories: systematic review and meta-analysis on lesion level and patient level. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021; 25(2):256-263. PMC: 9184264. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-021-00417-1. View

Siddiqui M, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong H, Stamatakis L, Vourganti S, Nix J . Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013; 64(5):713-719. PMC: 6301057. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.059. View

Zalesky M, Stejskal J, Minarik I, Adamcova V, Babjuk M, Zachoval R . Cancer detection rates and inter-examiner variability of MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy and systematic transrectal biopsy. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2019; 164(3):314-319. DOI: 10.5507/bp.2019.050. View

Kvale R, Moller B, Wahlqvist R, Fossa S, Berner A, Busch C . Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population-based study. BJU Int. 2009; 103(12):1647-54. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08255.x. View

Otti V, Miller C, Powell R, Thomas R, McGrath J . The diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging before biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2018; 123(1):82-90. DOI: 10.1111/bju.14420. View

Tooker G, Truong H, Pinto P, Siddiqui M . National Survey of Patterns Employing Targeted MRI/US Guided Prostate Biopsy in the Diagnosis and Staging of Prostate Cancer. Curr Urol. 2019; 12(2):97-103. PMC: 6504798. DOI: 10.1159/000489426. View

Giganti F, Moore C . A critical comparison of techniques for MRI-targeted biopsy of the prostate. Transl Androl Urol. 2017; 6(3):432-443. PMC: 5503959. DOI: 10.21037/tau.2017.03.77. View

10.

Noguchi M, Stamey T, McNeal J, Yemoto C . Relationship between systematic biopsies and histological features of 222 radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prediction of tumor significance for men with nonpalpable prostate cancer. J Urol. 2001; 166(1):104-9; discussion 109-10. View

11.

Stabile A, Giganti F, Kasivisvanathan V, Giannarini G, Moore C, Padhani A . Factors Influencing Variability in the Performance of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020; 3(2):145-167. PMC: 8942295. DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2020.02.005. View

12.

Matoso A, Epstein J . Defining clinically significant prostate cancer on the basis of pathological findings. Histopathology. 2018; 74(1):135-145. DOI: 10.1111/his.13712. View

13.

Ahmed H, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown L, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar M . Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017; 389(10071):815-822. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1. View

14.

Wei J, Barocas D, Carlsson S, Coakley F, Eggener S, Etzioni R . Early Detection of Prostate Cancer: AUA/SUO Guideline Part II: Considerations for a Prostate Biopsy. J Urol. 2023; 210(1):54-63. PMC: 11321723. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000003492. View

15.

Marks L, Young S, Natarajan S . MRI-ultrasound fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsy. Curr Opin Urol. 2012; 23(1):43-50. PMC: 3581822. DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e32835ad3ee. View

16.

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

17.

Kongnyuy M, George A, Rastinehad A, Pinto P . Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Prostate Biopsy: Review of Technology, Techniques, and Outcomes. Curr Urol Rep. 2016; 17(4):32. PMC: 4928379. DOI: 10.1007/s11934-016-0589-z. View

18.

Jones D, Friend C, Dreher A, Allgar V, Macleod U . The diagnostic test accuracy of rectal examination for prostate cancer diagnosis in symptomatic patients: a systematic review. BMC Fam Pract. 2018; 19(1):79. PMC: 5985061. DOI: 10.1186/s12875-018-0765-y. View

19.

Riedinger C, Womble P, Linsell S, Ye Z, Montie J, Miller D . Variation in prostate cancer detection rates in a statewide quality improvement collaborative. J Urol. 2014; 192(2):373-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.088. View

20.

Vourganti S, Rastinehad A, Yerram N, Nix J, Volkin D, Hoang A . Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound fusion biopsy detect prostate cancer in patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies. J Urol. 2012; 188(6):2152-2157. PMC: 3895467. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.025. View