Targeted prostate biopsy： value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in detection of localized cancer

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men, with 1.1 million new cases worldwide reported by the World Health Organization in one recent year. Transrectal ultrasound （TRUS）-guided biopsy has been used for the diagnosis of prostate cancer for over 2 decades, but the technique is usually blind to cancer location. Moreover, the false negative rate of TRUS biopsy has been reported to be as high as 47%. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging （mp-MRI） includes T1- and T2-weighted imaging as well as dynamic contrast-enhanced （DCE） and diffusion-weighted imaging （DWI）. mp-MRI is a major advance in the imaging of prostate cancer, enabling targeted biopsy of suspicious lesions. Evolving targeted biopsy techniquesmincluding direct in-bore biopsy, cognitive fusion and software-based MRI-ultrasound （MRI-US） fusion--have led to a several-fold improvement in cancer detection compared to the earlier method. Importantly, the detection of clinically significant cancers has been greatly facilitated by targeting, compared to systematic biopsy alone. Targeted biopsy via MRI-US fusion may dramatically alter the way prostate cancer is diagnosed and managed.     

Can Power Doppler enhanced transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy improve prostate cancer detection on first and repeat prostate biopsy?

OBJECTIVE: To determine the utility of Power Doppler enhanced transrectal ultrasound (PD-TRUS) and its guided prostate biopsies in men with prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels between 2.5 and 10 ng/ml and to evaluate its impact on prostate cancer (PCa) detection in men undergoing first and repeat biopsies. METHODS: A total of 136 consecutive referred men with serum total PSA (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, USA) levels between 2.5 and 10 ng/ml (mean age 64 +/- 9 years, range 45-82) and a normal digital rectal examination were included. 101 underwent a first biopsy whereas 35 had repeat biopsy. Gray-scale transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), and PD-TRUS (B&K Medical, Denmark) were performed in lithotomy position before and during the biopsy procedure. Vascularity accumulation and perfusion characteristics were recorded and graded as normal or abnormal in the peripheral zone of the prostate. A Vienna-nomogram based biopsy regime was performed in all patients on first biopsy and a special biopsy regime on repeat biopsy plus additional biopsies from abnormal sites on PD-TRUS. RESULTS: Overall PCa detection rate was 34.7% and 25.7% and abnormal accumulation on PD-TRUS was identified in 42.3% and 48.6% on first and repeat biopsy, respectively. The PCa detection rate, on first and repeat biopsy in patients with and without PD-TRUS accumulation were 67.4% versus 10.3% (p < 0.001) and 47.05% versus 5.6% (p = 0.0049), respectively. PD-TRUS directed biopsies were positive in 5.7% and 11.1% on first and repeat biopsy whereas PCa detection using the routine prostate biopsy regime was 94.3% and 88.9% on first and repeat biopsy. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of PD-TRUS signal alone for PCa detection on first biopsy was 82.8%, 78.8%, 87.9% and 89.7%, respectively, and 88.8%, 68.0%, 47.0% and 94.4% on repeat biopsy, respectively. In comparison, the results PD-TRUS guided biopsies were 53.8%, 59.1%, 16.7%, and 89.5%, on first biopsy, respectively, and 20.0%, 13.3%, 23.5%, 11.1% on repeat biopsy, respectively. CONCLUSION: Negative PD-TRUS signal is able to exclude most of the patients without PCa in the PSA range of 2.5-10 ng/ml. As an additional tool at TRUS biopsy PD-TRUS has a high negative predictive value and may help to reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies.     

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging–targeted biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer in patients with prior negative biopsy results

PurposeWe aimed to determine the performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) in patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound–guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-B) results.Materials and methodsBetween 2010 and 2013, 2,416 men underwent TRUS-B or an mpMRI or both at Vancouver General Hospital. Among these, 283 men had persistent suspicion of PCa despite prior negative TRUS-B finding. An MRI was obtained in 112, and a lesion (prostate imaging reporting and data system score ≥3) was identified in 88 cases (78%). A subsequent combined MRI-targeted and standard template biopsy was performed in 86 cases. A matching cohort of 86 patients was selected using a one-nearest neighbor method without replacement. The end points were the rate of diagnosis of PCa and significant PCa (sPCa) (Gleason>6, or>2 cores, or>50% of any core).ResultsMRI-targeted TRUS-B detected PCa and sPCa in 36 (41.9%) and 30 (34.9%) men when compared with 19 (22.1%) and 14 (16.3%), respectively, men without mpMRI (P = 0.005 for both). In 9 cases (10.4%), MRI-targeted TRUS-B detected sPCa that was missed on standard cores. sPCa was present in 6 cases (6.9%) on standard cores but not the targeted cores. Multivariate analysis revealed that prostate imaging reporting and data system score and prostate-specific antigen density>0.15 ng/ml² were statistically significant predictors of significant cancer detection (odds ratio = 14.93, P<0.001 and odds ratio = 6.19, P = 0.02, respectively).ConclusionIn patients with prior negative TRUS-B finding, MRI-targeted TRUS-B improves the detection rate of all PCa and sPCa.     

MRI-targeted biopsy for detecting prostate cancer: have the guidelines changed our practices and our prostate cancer detection rate?

International Urology and Nephrology - In our center, until 2018, MRI-targeted biopsy was underused. Since January 2018, we systematically performed MRI-targeted biopsy for suspicious...     

Can complexed prostate specific antigen enhance prostate cancer detection in Japanese men?

BACKGROUNDS: The aim of this study is to ascertain whether Bayer complexed PSA (cPSA) and volume referenced cPSA could enhance the detection of prostate cancer in Japanese men. METHODS: A total of 214 Japanese men whose serum total PSA (tPSA) values ranged from 1.2 ng/ml to 4600 ng/ml were enrolled from two institutions. Serum samples for tPSA, free PSA, PSA-alpha-1-antichymotripsin (PSA-ACT) and cPSA (ADVIA-Centaur) were obtained in all cases. In addition, total gland (TGV) as well as transition zone volume (TZV) were determined in all cases who underwent untrasound guided prostate biopsy (sextant and two additional transition zone biopsies). Biopsy outcome was correlated to the following parameters: tPSA, cPSA, PSA-ACT, free to total (F/T) PSA ratio, 2 complex to total (C/T) PSA ratios and 6 volume referenced parameters. RESULTS: Prostate cancer was detected in 85 of 214 patients (40%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in non-volume referenced variables was highest for cPSA (0.736), followed by PSA-ACT (0.735), tPSA (0.722), F/T PSA ratio (0.613) and C/T PSA ratio (0.591). Comparing tPSA with the cutoff value of 4.0 ng/ml, the cutoff value with a 2.8 ng/ml of cPSA detected one more positive biopsy patient, decreasing one more cancer missed case and 8 more false positive cases. At sensitivities of 85% to 95% in men with tPSA between 4.00 and 10.00 ng/ml (n = 116), there were no significant differences in the corresponding specificities between tPSA and cPSA, or between cPSA and PSA-ACT. At sensitivities of 90% to 95%, the corresponding specificities of PSA-ACT adjusted for transition zone volume revealed best performance. As for the performance in men with a tPSA less than 4.0 ng/ml, the specificities of cPSA performed best, and differed significantly from PSA-ACT and F/T PSA at sensitivities of 80% to 90%. CONCLUSION: Bayer cPSA could replace the first screening test by total PSA and can enhance cancer detection, compared with PSA-ACT. However, cPSA did not provide additional value in differentiating cancer from non-cancer cases in men with a tPSA between 4.00 and 10.00 ng/ml.     

Is systematic sextant biopsy suitable for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer?

BACKGROUND: The optimal extent of the prostate biopsy remains controversial. There is a need to avoid detection of insignificant cancer but not to miss significant and curable tumors. In alternative treatments of prostate cancer, repeated sextant biopsies are used to estimate the response. The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability of a repeated systematic sextant biopsy as the standard biopsy technique in patients with significant tumors which are being considered for curative treatment. METHODS: Systematic sextant biopsy was performed in vitro in 92 radical prostatectomy specimens. Of these patients, 81 (88.0%) had palpable lesions. RESULTS: Of the 92 investigated patients, 70 (76.1%) had potentially curable pT2-3pN0 prostate cancers. In these patients, the cancer was detected only in 72.9% of cases by a repeated in vitro biopsy. In the pT2 tumors, there was a detection rate of only 66.7%. CONCLUSIONS: This study underlines the fact that a considerable number of significant and potentially curable tumors remain undetected by the conventional sextant biopsy. A negative sextant biopsy does not rule out significant prostate cancer.     

Assessment of men’s risk thresholds to proceed with prostate biopsy for the early detection of prostate cancer

Purpose

To delineate the range of “risk thresholds” for prostate biopsy to determine how improved prostate cancer (CaP) risk prediction tools may impact shared decision-making (SDM).

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional survey study involving men 45–75 years old attending a multispecialty urology clinic. Data included demographics, personal and family prostate cancer history, and prostate biopsy history. Respondents were presented with a summary of the details, risks, and benefits of prostate biopsy, then asked to indicate the specific risk threshold (% chance) of high-grade CaP at which they would proceed with prostate biopsy.

Results

Of a total of 103 respondents, 18 men (17%) had a personal history of CaP, and 31 (30%) had undergone prostate biopsy. The median risk threshold to proceed with prostate biopsy was 25% (interquartile range 10–50%). Risk thresholds did not vary by race, education, or employment. Personal history of CaP or prostate biopsy was significantly associated with lower mean risk thresholds (19% vs. 32% [P?=?0.02] and 23% vs. 33% [P?=?0.04], respectively). In the lowest versus highest risk threshold quartiles, there were significantly higher rates of CaP (36% vs. 1%, P?=?0.01) and prior prostate biopsy (46% vs. 17%, P?<?0.01).

Conclusions

Men have a wide range of risk thresholds for high-grade CaP to proceed with prostate biopsy. Men with a prior history of CaP or biopsy reported lower risk thresholds, which may reflect their greater concern for this disease. The extent to which refined risk prediction tools will improve SDM warrants further study.

     

Does the transrectal ultrasound probe influence prostate cancer detection in patients undergoing an extended prostate biopsy scheme? Results of a large retrospective study

Study Type – Diagnostic (exploratory cohort) Level of Evidence 2b What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? The influence of transrectal probe system, end‐fire and side‐fire, has not been studied in detail. Using a sextant biopsy template it has been demonstrated a difference between end‐fire and side‐fire modes in 4–10 ng/mL PSA interval population. No studies evaluated the results in extended biopsy templates before. This study adds the knowledge that end‐fire and side‐fire transrectal probe, which are the two probe systems to perform transrectal prostate biopsy, have similar results in terms of prostate cancer detection rate and can be indifferently employed in extended prostate biopsy templates used in daily practice.

OBJECTIVE

• ? To compare the prostate cancer detection rate and tolerance profile between a transrectal biopsy made with a ‘side fire’ (SF) and an ‘end fire’ (EF) ultrasound probe.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

• ? We selected patients undergoing first biopsy and re‐biopsy of the prostate with a 14‐ and 18‐core template using EF and SF transrectal probes, respectively.
• ? We compared the cancer detection rate between the two probes on first biopsy and re‐biopsy and gauged patient tolerance using a visual analogue scale (VAS).

RESULTS

• ? A total of 1705 patients were included in the first biopsy group, while 487 were in the re‐biopsy group.
• ? The overall detection rate of first biopsy was 37.2%; the overall detection rate of re‐biopsy was 10.1%.
• ? No significant difference was found between the two probes in the first biopsy and re‐biopsy sets (38% vs 36.5%, P= 0.55; 10.8% vs 9.3%, P= 0.7).
• ? The lack of any significant association between the type of probe used and prostate cancer detection was confirmed by univariable and multivariable analyses in both the first biopsy and re‐biopsy sets after accounting for prostate‐specific antigen values, per cent free prostate‐specific antigen, digital rectal examination, and prostate and transition zone volumes.
• ? The patient tolerance profile of the SF group was significantly better than that of the EF group (mean VAS 1.78 ± 2.01 vs 1.45 ± 2.21; P= 0.02).

CONCLUSION

• ? The prostate cancer detection rate does not depend on the type of probe used. However, the SF transrectal probe is associated with a better patient tolerance profile.

     

Does HistoScanning™ predict positive results in prostate biopsy? A retrospective analysis of 1,188 sextants of the prostate

Purpose

The role of HistoScanning? (HS) in prostate biopsy is still indeterminate. Existing literature is sparse and controversial. To provide more evidence according to that important clinical topic, we analyzed institutional data from the Martini-Clinic, Prostate Cancer Center, Hamburg.

Methods

Patients who received prostate biopsy and who also received HS were included in the study cohort. A single examiner, blinded to pathological results, re-analyzed all HS data in accordance with sextants of the prostate. Each sextant was considered as an individual case. Corresponding results from biopsy and HS were analyzed. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the prediction of a positive biopsy by HS was calculated. Furthermore, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were assessed according to different HS signal volume cutoffs (>0, >0.2 and >0.5 ml).

Results

Overall, 198 men were identified and 1,188 sextants were analyzed. The AUC to predict positive biopsy results by HS was 0.58. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for HS to predict positive biopsy results per sextant, depending on different HS signal volume cutoffs (>0, >0.2 and >0.5 ml) were 84.1, 27.7, 29.5 and 82.9 %, 60.9, 50.6, 28.8 and 79.7 %, and 40.1, 73.3, 33.1 and 78.8 %, respectively.

Conclusions

Positive HS signals do not accurately predict positive prostate biopsy results according to sextant analysis. We cannot recommend a variation of well-established random biopsy patterns or reduction of biopsy cores in accordance with HS signals at the moment.     

Target detection: Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion–guided prostate biopsy

Recent advances in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have enabled image-guided detection of prostate cancer. Fusion of MRI with real-time ultrasound (US) allows the information from MRI to be used to direct biopsy needles under US guidance in an office-based procedure. Fusion can be performed either cognitively or electronically, using a fusion device. Fusion devices allow superimposition (coregistration) of stored MRI images on real-time US images; areas of suspicion found on MRI can then serve as targets during US-guided biopsy. Currently available fusion devices use a variety of technologies to perform coregistration: robotic tracking via a mechanical arm with built-in encoders (Artemis/Eigen, BioJet/Geoscan); electromagnetic tracking (UroNav/Philips-Invivo, Hi-RVS/Hitachi); or tracking with a 3D US probe (Urostation/Koelis). Targeted fusion biopsy has been shown to identify more clinically significant cancers and fewer insignificant cancers than conventional biopsy. Fusion biopsy appears to be a major advancement over conventional biopsy because it allows (1) direct targeting of suspicious areas not seen on US and (2) follow-up biopsy of specific cancerous sites in men undergoing active surveillance.     

Transrectal ultrasound biopsy of the prostate: does it still have a role in prostate cancer diagnosis?

Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsy of the prostate has been a standard diagnostic approach for prostate cancer over the past thirty years. Today, the role of TRUS biopsy is being challenged by transperineal (TP) prostate biopsy due to concerns over the safety and diagnostic yield of TRUS biopsy. TRUS biopsy still offers a convenient, reliable and accessible tool for diagnosing prostate cancer in the majority of patients. It continues to play a role in prostate cancer diagnosis, especially where hospital resource allocation is limited, including the public sector. TRUS biopsy has low rates of severe complications, although there remains room for improvement in current practice to improve the tolerability and reduce the incidence of post-biopsy infection.