MRI/US fusion prostate biopsy in men on active surveillance: Our experience
https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2021.1.88
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.
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
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.
Downloads
Citations
