The impact of prostate volume estimation on the risk-adapted biopsy decision based on prostate-specific antigen density and magnetic resonance imaging score.

PURPOSE: Utility of prostate-specific antigen density (PSAd) for risk-stratification to avoid unnecessary biopsy remains unclear due to the lack of standardization of prostate volume estimation. We evaluated the impact of ellipsoidal formula using multiparametric magnetic resonance (MRI) and semi-automated segmentation using tridimensional ultrasound (3D-US) on prostate volume and PSAd estimations as well as the distribution of patients in a risk-adapted table of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). METHODS: In a prospectively maintained database of 4841 patients who underwent MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies, 971 met inclusions criteria. Correlation of volume estimation was assessed by Kendall's correlation coefficient and graphically represented by scatter and Bland-Altman plots. Distribution of csPCa was presented using the Schoots risk-adapted table based on PSAd and PI-RADS score. The model was evaluated using discrimination, calibration plots and decision curve analysis (DCA). RESULTS: Median prostate volume estimation using 3D-US was higher compared to MRI (49cc[IQR 37-68] vs 47cc[IQR 35-66], p < 0.001). Significant correlation between imaging modalities was observed (τ = 0.73[CI 0.7-0.75], p < 0.001). Bland-Altman plot emphasizes the differences in prostate volume estimation. Using the Schoots risk-adapted table, a high risk of csPCa was observed in PI-RADS 2 combined with high PSAd, and in all PI-RADS 4-5. The risk of csPCa was proportional to the PSAd for PI-RADS 3 patients. Good accuracy (AUC of 0.69 and 0.68 using 3D-US and MRI, respectively), adequate calibration and a higher net benefit when using 3D-US for probability thresholds above 25% on DCA. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate volume estimation with semi-automated segmentation using 3D-US should be preferred to the ellipsoidal formula (MRI) when evaluating PSAd and the risk of csPCa.

Transperineal or Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Detection.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: A notable paradigm shift has emerged in the choice of prostate biopsy approach, with a transition from transrectal biopsy (TRBx) to transperineal biopsy (TPBx) driven by the lower risk of severe urinary tract infections. The impact of this change on detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) remains a subject of debate. Our aim was to compare the csPCa detection rate of TRBx and TPBx. METHODS: Patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted and systematic biopsies for clinically localized PCa at 15 European referral centers from 2016 to 2023 were included. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to minimize selection biases. Logistic regression models were used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 3949 patients who met the study criteria, 2187 underwent TRBx and 1762 underwent TPBx. PSM resulted in 1301 matched pairs for analysis. Patient demographics and tumor characteristics were comparable in the matched cohorts. TPBx versus TRBx was associated with greater detection of csPCa, whether defined as International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2 (51% vs 45%; OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.15-1.63; p = 0.001) or grade group ≥3 (29% vs 23%; OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.13-1.67; p = 0.001). Similar results were found when considering MRI-targeted biopsy alone and after stratifying patients according to tumor location, Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score, and clinical features. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and the absence of centralized MRI review. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings bolster existing understanding of the additional advantages offered by TPBx. Further randomized trials to fully validate these findings are awaited. PATIENT SUMMARY: We compared the rate of detection of clinically significant prostate cancer with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsies in which the sample needle is passed through the perineum or the rectum. Our results suggest that the perineal approach is associated with better detection of aggressive prostate cancer.

PIRADS≥4 MRI lesion: Is performing systematic biopsies still essential for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer?

INTRODUCTION: In the era of targeted prostate biopsies, the necessity of performing randomized biopsies systematically is under question. Our objective is to evaluate the rate of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), defined by presence of ISUP≥2 prostate cancer, diagnosed only on randomized cores in case of a PIRADS≥4 target lesion on MRI. The secondary objective is to evaluate whether specific variables can predict the presence of undetected csPCa in targeted biopsies. METHODS: Retrospective data on targeted biopsies performed from 2015 to 2021 in our hospital were collected. Procedures were performed with MRI/Transrectal US fusion Trinity platform from Koelis®. All the MRI images were reviewed and the targets were classified using the PIRADS V2.1 classification. Inclusion criteria comprised procedures featuring at least one PIRADS≥4 targeted lesion were included. All procedures consisted 1-4 targeted cores and 12-core systematic biopsy. RESULTS: We included 358 patients. In 44 patients (12.3%) csPCa was exclusively detected in randomized cores. Among these cases, only 12 patients (27.2%) showed no cancer on the targeted biopsies. Merely 4 patients (9.09%) lacked csPCa-positive cores on the same side as the index lesion. Factors such as PSA, PSA density, prostate volume, and digital rectal examination showed no significant association with the presence of csPCa exclusively on randomized cores. Likewise, the size, location, and PIRADS classification of the target demonstrated no significant impact. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that in 12.3% of cases, targeted biopsies alone are insufficient for detecting the presence of csPCa. As such, systematic biopsies remain necessary to date.

The Added Value of Side-specific Systematic Biopsy in Patients Diagnosed by Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsy.

BACKGROUND: Systematic biopsy (SB) combined with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy is still recommended considering the risk of missing clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the added value in csPCa detection on side-specific SB relative to MRI lesion and to externally validate the Noujeim risk stratification model that predicts the risk of csPCa on distant SB cores relative to the index MRI lesion. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Overall, 4841 consecutive patients diagnosed by MRI-targeted biopsy and SB for Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score ≥3 lesions were identified from a prospectively maintained database between January 2016 and April 2023 at 15 European referral centers. A total of 2387 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: McNemar's test was used to compare the csPCa detection rate between several biopsy strategies including MRI-targeted biopsy, side-specific SB, and a combination of both. Model performance was evaluated in terms of discrimination using area under the receiver operation characteristic curve (AUC), calibration plots, and decision curve analysis. Clinically significant prostate cancer was defined as International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, the csPCa detection rate was 49%. Considering MRI-targeted biopsy as reference, the added values in terms of csPCa detection were 5.8% (relative increase of 13%), 4.2% (relative increase of 9.8%), and 2.8% (relative increase of 6.1%) for SB, ipsilateral SB, and contralateral SB, respectively. Only 35 patients (1.5%) exclusively had csPCa on contralateral SB (p < 0.001). Considering patients with csPCa on MRI-targeted biopsy and ipsilateral SB, the upgrading rate was 2% (20/961) using contralateral SB (p < 0.001). The Noujeim model exhibited modest performance (AUC of 0.63) when tested using our validation set. CONCLUSIONS: The added value of contralateral SB was negligible in terms of cancer detection and upgrading rates. The Noujeim model could be included in the decision-making process regarding the appropriate prostate biopsy strategy. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the present study, we collected a set of patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted and systematic biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer. We found that biopsies taken at the opposite side of the MRI suspicious lesion have a negligible impact on cancer detection. We also validate a risk stratification model that predicts the risk of cancer on biopsies beyond 10 mm from the initial lesion, which could be used in daily practice to improve the personalization of the prostate biopsy.