Use of PSA density and multiparametric MRI for indication of prostate biopsy
Authors:
Miroslav Záleský 1,4; Jiří Stejskal 1; Vanda Adamcová 1; Jan Hrbáček 1; Ivo Minárik 2; Adam Pavličko 3; Jan Votrubová 3; Marek Babjuk 2; Roman Zachoval 1,4
Authors‘ workplace:
Urologická klinika, 3. LF UK a Thomayerova nemocnice, Praha
1; Urologická klinika, Fakultní nemocnice Motol, Praha
2; Radiologické oddělení, Thomayerova nemocnice, Praha
3; Urologická klinika 1. LF UK, Praha
4
Published in:
Ces Urol 2019; 23(1): 43-50
Category:
Original Articles
Overview
Major statement: The combination of MRI and PSA density can be safely used to decide whether or not to perform a prostate biopsy in patients with elevated PSA as long as appropriate PIRADS and PSAD thresholds are used.
Aim: The aim of this prospective study was to show the benefits of PSA density and MRI in reduction of unnecessary biopsies without compromising detection of significant prostate cancer of patients in first biopsy and rebiopsy groups.
Material and methods: MRI and MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsies with subsequent system‑atic biopsies were performed in 397 patients. First biopsy was carried out in 223 patients and rebiopsy in 174 patients.
Detection rates of clinically significant an insig‑nificant prostate cancer were stratified using the PI‑RADS score and the number of potentially avoided biopsies and missed significant prostate cancers were calculated. The percentage of avoided biopsies and missed cancers was also calculated using PSA density cut-off values from 0,1–0,5 ng/ml2.
Results: The safest criteria for not performing biopsy were PIRADS < 3 and PSAD <0,2 ng/ml2.
When applying these criteria in the first biopsy group, 21,52% (48/223) of biopsies could have been avoided, 16,67% (5/30) of clinically insignificant pros‑tate cancer would not have been diagnosed, and 3,66 % (3/82) of clinically significant prostate cancers would have been missed.
In the rebiopsy group 12,64% (22/174) of biopsies could have been avoided, 4,35% (1/23) of clinically insignificant prostate cancer would have not been diagnosed, and 6,9% (4/58) of clinically significant prostate cancers would have been missed.
Conclusion: With appropriate criteria setting the combination of MRI and PSA density can be safely used to decide whether to perform prostate biopsy in patients with PSA elevations especially in the group without previous biopsy.
Keywords:
prostate cancer – Biopsy – fusion – MRI – PSA density
Sources
1. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU‑ESTRO‑SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2017; 71(4): 618–629.
2. Ukimura O, Coleman JA, de la Taille A, et al. Contemporary role of systematic prostate biopsies: indi‑cations, techniques, and implications for patient care. Eur Urol. 2013; 63(2): 214–230.
3. Ryznarová Z, Horák M, Dvořák J, et al. Význam magnetické rezonance v diagnostice karcinomu prostaty a první zkušenosti s využitím MR spektroskopie. Ces Radiol 2009; 63(1): 80–88.
4. Stejskal J, Jašková V, Pavličko A, et al. Diagnostika karcinomu prostaty pomocí fúzní biopsie. Ces Urol 2018; 22(2): 87–98.
5. Kudláčková Š, Záťura F, Tüdös Z. Cílená biopsie prostaty pomocí magnetické rezonance – 1. část. Urol. praxi 2017; 18(2): 69–72.
6. Ahmed HU, El‑Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi‑parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017; 389(10071): 815–822.
7. Benson MC, Whang IS, Pantuck A, et al. Prostate specific antigen density: a means of distinguishing benign prostatic hypertrophy and prostate cancer. J Urol. 1992; 147(3 Pt 2): 815–816.
8. Padhani AR, Weinreb J, Rosenkrantz AB, et al. Prostate Imaging‑Reporting and Data System Steering Committee: PI‑RADS v2 Status Update and Future Directions. Eur Urol. 2019; 75(3): 385–396.
9. Venderink W, van Luijtelaar A, Bomers JG, et al. Results of Targeted Biopsy in Men with Magnetic Resonance Imaging Lesions Classified Equivocal, Likely or Highly Likely to Be Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2018; 73(3): 353–360.
10. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012; 22(4): 746–757.
11. Jelidi A, Ohana M, Labani A, et al. Prostate cancer diagnosis: Efficacy of a simple electromagnetic MRI‑TRUS fusion method to target biopsies. Eur J Radiol. 2017; 86: 127–134.
12. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994; 271(5): 368–374.
13. Simmons LAM, Kanthabalan A, Arya M, et al. The PICTURE study: diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI in men requiring a repeat prostate biopsy. Br J Cancer 2017; 116(9): 1159–1165. 14. Kotb AF, Spaner S, Crump T, Hyndman ME. The role of mpMRI and PSA density in patients with an initial negative prostatic biopsy. World J Urol. 2018; 36(12): 2021–2025.
15. Schoots IG. MRI in early prostate cancer detection: how to manage indeterminate or equivocal PI‑RADS 3 lesions? Transl Androl Urol. 2018; 7(1): 70–82.
16. Distler FA, Radtke JP, Bonekamp D, et al. The Value of PSA Density in Combination with PI‑RADS for the Accuracy of Prostate Cancer Prediction. J Urol. 2017; 198(3): 575–582.
17. Washino S, Okochi T, Saito K, et al. Combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI ‑RADS) score and prostate‑specific antigen (PSA) density predicts biopsy outcome in prostate biopsy naive patients. BJU Int. 2017; 119(2): 225–233.
18. Hansen NL, Barrett T, Koo B, et al. The influence of prostate‑specific antigen density on positive and negative predictive values of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect Gleason score 7-10 prostate cancer in a repeat biopsy setting. BJU Int. 2017; 119(5): 724–730.
19. Brizmohun Appayya M, Adshead J, Ahmed HU, et al. National implementation of multi‑parametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection – recommendations from a UK consensus meeting. BJU Int. 2018; 122(1): 13–25.
20. Alberts AR, Roobol MJ, Drost FH, et al. Risk‑stratification based on magnetic resonance imaging and prostate‑specific antigen density may reduce unnecessary follow‑up biopsy procedures in men on active surveillance for low‑risk prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2017; 120(4): 511–519.
21. Esses SJ, Taneja SS, Rosenkrantz AB. Imaging Facilities‘ Adherence to PI‑RADS v2 Minimum Technical Standards for the Performance of Prostate MRI. Acad Radiol. 2018; 25(2): 188–195.
22. Sonn GA, Fan RE, Ghanouni P, et al. Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Interpretation Varies Substantially Across Radiologists. Eur Urol Focus. 2017; S2405–4569(17): 30266–30273
Labels
Paediatric urologist Nephrology UrologyArticle was published in
Czech Urology
2019 Issue 1
Most read in this issue
- Use of PSA density and multiparametric MRI for indication of prostate biopsy
- Endometriosis of the bladder as a cause of iatrogenic bladder perforation
- A urologists view of hematuria in pediatric patients
- Diagnosis, therapy and urological complications of cloacal malformations