https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2024.12992
Multiparametric MRI targeted prostate biopsy: When omit systematic biopsy?
Submitted: August 30, 2024
Accepted: September 16, 2024
Published: November 11, 2024
Accepted: September 16, 2024
Abstract Views: 484
PDF: 157
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Authors
Introduction: To evaluate the detection rate for prostate cancer (PCa) performing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) fusion targeted biopsy (TPBx) combined only with ipsilateral systematic prostate biopsy (SPBx).
Materials and methods: From January 2023 to December 2023, 495 men with clinical suspicion of PCa underwent transperineal SPBx plus TPBx in the presence of PI-RADS score lesions ≥ 3.
Results: In 250/495 men (50.5%) a PCa was found, while 36/250 (14.4%) men had negative mpMRI. In comparison to TPBx, SPBx diagnosed a higher number of indolent PCa, 38.5 vs. 5.8%, respectively; conversely, SPBx demonstrated a higher detection rate for clinically significant PCa (97.3 vs. 85.4%) in the presence of ISUP Grade Group 2 (GG2). In details, rates were higher in the presence of GG2 (100 vs. 76%), GG3 (85.7 vs. 75.8%) and GG4 (100 vs. 86.4%) tumors. However, in GG5, both SPBx and TPBx diagnosed 100% of csPCa. Furthermore, 89.4% of the cases showed csPCa on the negative mpMRI side.
Conclusions: SPBx combined with TPBx maximized csPCa diagnosis; the use of reduced biopsy scheme limited to ipsilateral side of mpMRI lesion plus TPBx missed 11.6% csPCa. Only in the presence of PI-RADS score 5 SPBx and TPBx diagnosed both 100% of csPCa.
Bergengren O, Pekala KR, Matsoukas K, et al. 2022 Update on Prostate Cancer Epidemiology and Risk Factors-A Systematic Review.
Eur Urol 2023; 84:191-206.
Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo GD, et al. Is it Time to Perform Only Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Cores? Our Experience with
,032 Men Who Underwent Prostate Biopsy. J Urol 2018; 200:774-778.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.04.061
Roscigno M, Stabile A, Lughezzani G, et al. The Use of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Follow-up of Patients
Included in Active Surveillance Protocol. Can PSA Density Discriminate Patients at Different Risk of Reclassification? Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2020; 18:e698-e704.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2020.04.006
Pepe P, D'Urso D, Garufi A, et al. Multiparametric MRI Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) Accuracy in Diagnosing Clinically
Significant Prostate Cancer. In Vivo 2017; 31:415-418.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.11075
Salemi M, Pettinato A, Fraggetta F, et al. Expression of miR-132 and miR-212 in prostate cancer and metastatic lymph node: Case
report and revision of the literature. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2020;92:209.
Fiorentino V, Martini M, Dell'Aquila M, et al. Histopathological Ratios to Predict Gleason Score Agreement between Biopsy and
Radical Prostatectomy. Diagnostics (Basel) 2020;11:10.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11010010
Pecci V, Troisi F, Aiello A, et al. Targeting of H19/cell adhesion molecules circuitry by GSK-J4 epidrug inhibits metastatic progression in
prostate cancer. Cancer Cell Int. 2024; 24:56.
Pepe P, Cimino S, Garufi A, et al. Confirmatory biopsy of men under active surveillance: extended versus saturation versus multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy. Scand J Urol 2017; 51:260-263.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2017.1313310
Russell JR, Siddiqui MM. Active surveillance in favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer: outstanding questions and controversies.
Curr Opin Oncol 2022; 34:219-27.
Pepe P, Pepe L, Pennisi M, Fraggetta F. Oncological Outcomes in Men With Favorable Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer Enrolled in
Active Surveillance. In Vivo 2024; 38:1300-5.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.13569
Pepe P, Pennisi M. Morbidity following transperineal prostate biopsy: Our experience in 8.500 men. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2022;94:155-9.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2022.2.155
Pepe P, Candiano G, Pepe L, et al. mpMRI PI-RADS score 3 lesions diagnosed by reference vs affiliated radiological centers: Our
experience in 950 cases. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2021; 93:139-42.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2021.2.139
Pepe P, Pepe L, Pennisi M, Fraggetta F. Which Prostate Biopsy in Men Enrolled in Active Surveillance? Experience in 110 Men Submitted to Scheduled Three-Years Transperineal Saturation Biopsy Combined With Fusion Targeted Cores. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2021;19:305-308.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2021.01.004
Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo G, Pennisi M. Transperineal Versus Transrectal MRI/TRUS Fusion Targeted Biopsy: Detection Rate of
Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2017;15:e33-e36.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2016.07.007
Pepe P, Aragona F. Prostate needle biopsy: 12 vs. 18 cores -- is it necessary? Urol Int 2005; 74: 19-22.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000082703
Offermann A, Hupe MC, Sailer V, et al. The new ISUP 2014/WHO 2016 prostate cancer grade group system: first résumé 5 years
after introduction and systemic review of the literature. World J Urol 2020; 38:657-62.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02744-4
Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo G, Pennisi M. Can MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy replace saturation prostate biopsy in the re-evaluation
of men in active surveillance? World J Urol 2016; 34:1249-53.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1749-3
Chang SD, Ghai S, Kim CK, et al. MRI Targeted Prostate Biopsy Techniques: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review. AJR Am J
Roentgenol 2021; 217:1263-81.
Yusim I, Mazor E, Frumkin E, et al. Evaluation of the optimal strategy in men with a single unilateral suspicious lesion on MRI
undergoing transperineal MRI/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy. Prostate 2023; 83:1255-62.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.24585
Bourgeno HA, Jabbour T, Baudewyns A, et al. The Added Value of Side-specific Systematic Biopsy in Patients Diagnosed by Magnetic
Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsy. Eur Urol Oncol 2024:S2588-9311(24)00031-2. Online ahead of print
Hagens MJ, Noordzij MA, Mazel JW, et al. An Magnetic Resonance Imaging-directed Targeted-plus-perilesional Biopsy
Approach for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: "Less Is More". Eur Urol Open Sci 2022; 43:68-73.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2022.07.006
Deniffel D, Perlis N, Ghai S, et al. Prostate biopsy in the era of MRItargeting: towards a judicious use of additional systematic biopsy. Eur Radiol 2022; 32:7544-54.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08822-3
Sawhney V, Huang R, Huang WC, et al. Predictors of Contralateral Disease in Men with Unilateral Lesions on Multiparametric MRI.
Urology. 2024:S0090-4295(24)00564-8. Online ahead of print
Phelps TE, Yilmaz EC, Harmon SA, et al. Ipsilateral hemigland prostate biopsy may underestimate cancer burden in patients with
unilateral mpMRI-visible lesions. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2023;48:1079-89.
Hou Y, Jiang KW, Zhang J, et al. A clinical available decision support scheme for optimizing prostate biopsy based on mpMRI. Prostate
Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2022; 25:727-34.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-021-00489-z
Avolio PP, Lughezzani G, Anidjar M, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of micro-ultrasound for prostate cancer diagnosis: a review. World J Urol 2023; 41:3267-76.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04521-w
Pepe P, Pepe L, Tamburo M, et al. Targeted prostate biopsy: 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT vs. mpMRI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2022; 94:274-77.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2022.3.274
Pepe P, Pennisi M. Targeted Biopsy in Men High Risk for Prostate Cancer: 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT Versus mpMRI. Clin Genitourin
Cancer 2023; 21:639-42.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2023.06.007
Pepe P, Pepe L, Cosentino S, et al. Detection Rate of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT vs. mpMRI Targeted Biopsy for Clinically Significant Prostate
Cancer. Anticancer Res 2022; 42:3011-15.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.15785
Pepe P, Roscigno M, Pepe L, et al. Could 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT Evaluation Reduce the Number of Scheduled Prostate Biopsies in Men
Enrolled in Active Surveillance Protocols? J Clin Med. 2022;11:3473.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11123473
How to Cite
Pepe, P., Pepe, L., Fiorentino, V., Curduman, M., & Fraggetta, F. (2024). Multiparametric MRI targeted prostate biopsy: When omit systematic biopsy?. Archivio Italiano Di Urologia E Andrologia, 96(4). https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2024.12992
Copyright (c) 2024 the Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.
Similar Articles
- Débora Araújo, Alexandre Gromicho, Jorge Dias, Samuel Bastos, Rui Miguel Maciel, Ana Sabença, Luís Xambre, Predictors of prostate cancer detection in MRI PI-RADS 3 lesions – Reality of a tertiary center , Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia: Vol. 95 No. 4 (2023)
You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.