MRI/US fusion prostate biopsy in men on active surveillance: Our experience
Aim: The upgrading or staging in men with prostate cancer (PCA) undergoing active surveillance (AS), defined as Gleason score (GS) ≥ 3+4 or more than 2 area with cancer, was investigated in our experience using the software-based fusion biopsy (FB).
Methods: We selected from our database, composed of 620 biopsies, only men on AS according to criteria of John Hopkins Protocol (T1c, < 3 positive cores, GS = 3+3 = 6). Monitoring consisted of PSA measurement every 3 months, a clinical examination every 6 months, confirmatory FB within 6 months and then annual FB in all men. The suspicious MRI lesions were scored according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) classification version 2. FB were performed with a transrectal elastic free-hand fusion platform. The overall and clinically significant cancer detection rate was reported. Secondary, the diagnostic role of systematic biopsies was evaluated.
Results: We selected 56 patients on AS with mean age 67.4 years, mean PSA 6.7 ng/ml and at least one follow-up MRI-US fusion biopsy (10 had 2 or 3 follow-up biopsies). Lesions detected by MRI were: PIRADS-2 in 5, PIRADS-3 in 28, PIRADS-4 in 18 pts and PIRADS-5 in 5 patients. In each MRI lesion, FB with 2.1 ± 1.1 cores were taken with a mean total cores of 13 ± 2.4 including the systematic cores. The overall cancer detection rate was 71% (40/56): 62% (25/40) in target core and 28% (15/40) in systematic core. The overall significant cancer detection rate was 46% (26/56): 69% (18/26) in target vs 31% (8/26) in random cores.
Conclusions: The incidence of clinical significant cancer was 46% in men starting active surveillance, but it was more than doubled using MRI/US Target Biopsy 69% (18/26) rather than random cores (31%, 8/26). However, 1/3 of disease upgrades would have been missed if only the targeted biopsies were performed. Based on our experience, MRI/US fusion target biopsy must be associated to systematic biopsies to improve detection of significant cancer, reducing the risks of misclassification.
Cooperberg MR. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer - an evolving international standard of care. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:1398-1399. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.3179
Gasparrini S, Cimadamore A, Mazzucchelli R, et al. Pathology and molecular updates in tumors of the prostate: towards a personalized approach. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2017; 17:781-789. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14737159.2017.1341314
Montironi R, Santoni M, Mazzucchelli R, et al. Prostate cancer: from Gleason scoring to prognostic grade grouping. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2016; 16:433-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1586/14737140.2016.1160780
Mazzucchelli R, Galosi AB, Lopez-Beltran A, et al. Pathological issues in biopsy specimens of men with prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2014; 30;86:314-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2014.4.314
Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: overview and update. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2013; 14:97-108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-012-0221-5
Dinh KT, Mahal BA, Ziehr DR et al. Incidence and predictors of upgrading and upstaging among 10,000 contemporary patients with low risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2015; 194:343-349. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.015
Barrett T, Haider MA. The. emerging role of MRI in prostate cancer active surveillance and ongoing challenges. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017; 208:131-139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.16355
Elkhoury FF, Simopoulos DN, Marks LS. Targeted prostate biopsy in the era of active surveillance. Urology. 2018;112:12-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.09.007
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. PRECISION Study Group Collaborators. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018; 378:1767-1777. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
Lacetera V, Cervelli B, Cicetti A, et al. MRI/US fusion prostate biopsy: our initial experience. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2016; 88:296-299. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2016.4.296
Fandella A, Scattoni V, Galosi A, et al. Italian Prostate Biopsies Group: 2016 Updated Guidelines Insights. Anticancer Res. 2017; 37:413-424. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.11333
Baco E, Rud E, Eri LM, et al. A randomized controlled trial to assess and compare the outcomes of two-core prostate biopsy guided by fused magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound images and traditional 12-core systematic biopsy. Eur Urol. 2016; 69:149-156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.03.041
Ukimura O, Gross ME, de Castro Abreu AL, et al. A novel technique using three-dimensionally documented biopsy mapping allows precise re-visiting of prostate cancer foci with serial surveillance of cell cycle progression gene panel. Prostate. 2015; 75:863-71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.22969
Mozer P, Rouprêt M, Le Cossec C, et al. First round of targeted biopsies using magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion compared with conventional transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsies for the diagnosis of localised prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2015;115:50-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12690
Nassiri N, Margolis DJ, Natarajan S, et al. Targeted biopsy to detect Gleason score upgrading during active surveillance for men with low versus intermediate risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2017; 197:632-639. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.09.070
Jayadevan, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging–guided confirmatory biopsy for initiating active surveillance of prostate cancer JAMA Netw Open. 2019; 2:e1911019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.11019
Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, et al. MRIFIRST Investigators. Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRIFIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol. 2019; 20:100-109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2
Elkhoury FF, Felker ER, Kwan L, et al. Comparison of targeted vs systematic prostate biopsy in men who are biopsy naive: the Prospective Assessment of Image Registration in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer (PAIREDCAP) study JAMA Surg. 2019; 154:811-818. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2019.1734
Frye TP, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound guided fusion biopsy to detect progression in patients with existing lesions on active surveillance for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2017;197:640-646. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.08.109
Klotz L, Loblaw A, Sugar L, et al. Active Surveillance Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study (ASIST): results of a randomized multicenter prospective trial. Eur Urol. 2019; 75:300-309. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.06.025
Ma TM, Tosoian JJ, et al. The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy in active surveillance. Eur Urol. 2017; 71:174-180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.05.021
Cimadore A, Scarpelli M, Raspolini MR, et al. Prostate cancer pathology: What has changed in the last 5 years. Urologia 2020; 87:3-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0391560319876821
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
- Abstract views: 96
- PDF: 67
Copyright (c) 2021 the Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.