Comparison of Prostate Biopsy with or without Prebiopsy Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer Detection: An Observational Cohort Study

Bryant, Richard J.; Hobbs, Catherine; Eyre, Katie; Davies, Lucy; Sullivan, M.; Shields, William W.; Sooriakumaran, Prasanna; Verrill, Clare; Gleeson, Fergus; Macpherson, Ruth E.; Hamdy, Freddie C.; Brewster, Simon

doi:10.1016/j.juro.2018.09.049

Cited by 30 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 29 publications

(35 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Conversely, PSA density (PSAd) <0.15ng/ml/ml was found to be a significant predictive factor in 8 studies [7][8][9]11,19,22,34,35]. The NPV of the combination of mpMRI and PSAd <0.15ng/ml/ml ranged from 84% to 100% in these studies.…”

Section: Clinical Factors and Psa Densitymentioning

confidence: 78%

What to expect from a non-suspicious prostate MRI? A review

Fiard

Norris

Nguyen

et al. 2020

Progrès en Urologie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abbreviations mpMRI Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging NPV Negative Predictive Value Résumé Contexte : La réalisation d'une IRM multiparamétrique (IRMmp) est désormais recommandée avant la réalisation de biopsies prostatiques. En revanche, la conduite à tenir en présence d'une IRMmp non-suspecte (Score Likert ou PIRADS 1-2) est toujours débattue. Objectifs : Faire une synthèse de la littérature récente pour répondre à trois questions. 1) Faut-il réaliser des biopsies systématisées en présence d'une IRMmp non suspecte ? 2) Quels facteurs prédictifs permettent de définir les patients candidats à une biopsie systématisée ? 3) Le manque de visibilité de certains cancers peut-elle être expliquée et quelles en sont les conséquences cliniques ? Sources : Une revue narrative de la littérature a été réalisée à partir des bases de données Medline utilisant deux recherches avec les termes "MRI" AND "prostate cancer" AND ("diagnosis" OR "biopsy") AND ("non-suspicious" OR "negative" OR "invisible") ; "prostate cancer MRI visible". Les références des articles sélectionnés ont été analysées à la recherche d'articles supplémentaires. Sélection des études : Les études publiées dans les 5 dernières années en anglais ont été analysées et retenues si les données disponibles permettaient de répondre à l'une des 3 questions posées. Résultats : Considérant les cancers de grade ISUP ³ 2 cliniquement significatifs, la valeur prédictive négative (VPN) de l'IRMmp était comprise entre 76% et 99%, dépendante de la prévalence du cancer et du type de test de référence utilisé. La VPN était plus élevée chez les patients aux antécédents de biopsie négative (88-96%), et plus faible chez les patients en surveillance active (85-90%). La densité de PSA (PSAd) avec un seuil de PSAd<0.15ng/ml/ml était le facteur prédictif le plus étudié et le plus pertinent associé à l'IRMmp pour éliminer un cancer significatif. Enfin, les tumeurs non visibles à l'IRMmp présentaient des différences au niveau histopathologique et génétique, conférant un intérêt clinique à la visibilité IRM. Limites du travail : La plupart des données proviennent de centres experts et les résultats peuvent ne pas être reproductibles en dehors. Conclusion : L'IRMmp fait preuve de performances diagnostiques élevées pour éliminer un cancer cliniquement significatif. La densité de PSA peut être utilisée pour sélectionner patients devant avoir une biopsie. Une meilleure connaissance des mécanismes à l'origine de la visibilité du cancer devrait aider le développement de nomogrammes et biomarqueurs plus précis.

show abstract

Section: Clinical Factors and Psa Densitymentioning

confidence: 78%

What to expect from a non-suspicious prostate MRI? A review

Fiard

Norris

Nguyen

et al. 2020

Progrès en Urologie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bryant and colleagues suggested that a PSA density above 0.15 ng/ml/cc only acts a predictor of an increased likelihood of underlying csPCa in men with negative mpMRI when csPCa is defined as Gleason Grade Group 3-5 disease and/or tumour length ≥6 mm [28,57,58]. A prior negative biopsy may also a reassuring feature although we did not find a statistically significant difference in the summary NPVs between the primary biopsy (89%) and prior negative biopsy groups (93%) [61].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Era: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reviewer #4: The authors are still failing to take the problem of heterogeneity seriously. The latest response was "well, yes, the results are all over the place, but most results are pretty good". First off, it is not at all clear to this reviewer that a negative predictive value of 85%, the threshold used by the authors, is acceptable. Would most patients be happy to be told that they only have a 15% risk of high-grade cancer, so not to worry about it? That is approximately the risk for a PSA of 10. How many urologists would argue against giving a biopsy to a man with a PSA of 10?Second, the point about heterogeneity is absolutely not to find out where the majority of results lie. For instance, if this was a meta-analysis of complication risk after abortion, and there was gross heterogeneity, with most clinics having very low rates and a few having very high rates, I'm pretty sure the conclusion wouldn't be only that "abortion is a safe procedure". More likely, there would be something about there being some unsafe clinics, and then an analysis to determine the characteristics of those clinics (e.g. solo practice) or a call for further research to determine why some clinics have poor outcomes. The current paper reads as if the authors came up with the conclusion first and then went through the motions of reporting forest plots and I2 statistics and so on. The conclusion that "Multiparametric MRI of the prostate is an accurate test for ruling-out clinically significant prostate cancer" is simply not an appropriate reflection of the data presented by the authors.Formatted: Font: Bold Commented [AL1]: I know we'd already done it but we don't need to point that out to AV. Hopefully he'll think we've now spotted the wisdom of his words and made the change requested. Don't want to give him any reason to dig his heals in.

show abstract

“…On the other hand, performing systematic transrectal USguided biopsy after low-likelihood MRI findings in all men results in overdetection in about 18% (95% CI: 14%, 24%) of patients with ISUP grade group 1 disease (8,10,(35)(36)(37)(42)(43)(44). In other words, if systematic US-guided transrectal biopsies are performed after low-likelihood MRI, two men will be diagnosed with insignificant cancer for one man detected with an ISUP grade group 2 or greater cancer.…”

Section: Yield Of Systematic Transrectal Us Biopsy After Mri Reveals mentioning

confidence: 99%

PI-RADS Steering Committee: The PI-RADS Multiparametric MRI and MRI-directed Biopsy Pathway

Padhani¹,

Barentsz²,

Villeirs³

et al. 2019

Radiology

187

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

he current version of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) was formulated on experience gained from PI-RADS version 1, accumulated scientific evidence, and expert consensus (1). The release of PI-RADS version 2.1 is expected to further improve observer variability (2). A recent publication evaluated multiple clinical studies, systematic analyses, and professional guidelines on their use of multiparametric MRI in prostate cancer detection (3). It showed that the test performance of multiparametric MRI-directed biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer is superior to that of systematic transrectal US-guided biopsy. High-level evidence has now established multiple benefits of MRI-directed biopsy over systematic transrectal US-guided biopsy of the prostate (4). These benefits include (a) a reduction in the number of men who need to undergo biopsy (5-9); (b) a reduction in the number of diagnoses of clinically insignificant cancers that are unlikely to cause harm (4,10), with the potential to reduce overtreatment, treatment-related complications, and active surveillance rates (6); (c) improved detection of clinically significant prostate cancers, particularly in patients with prior negative transrectal US-guided biopsy findings (4,10); and (d) improved risk stratification of diagnosed cancers owing to greater precision in tumor grade and volume determinations, which helps direct disease management. All these advantages can be achieved with fewer targeted biopsy cores per patient, potentially reducing biopsy-related morbidity (6,8,11). The purpose of this article is to focus on how multiparametric MRI results can positively impact the health of men suspected of having clinically significant prostate cancer. Who Should Undergo MRI before Biopsy? Patients chosen for MRI before biopsy include biopsynaive men with elevated serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, abnormal digital rectal examination findings, or both, and men who are deemed to have persistent elevated risk of harboring clinically significant cancers despite prior negative or nonexplanatory systematic transrectal US biopsy findings. Indications for MRI should be based on the recommendations for screening and early diagnosis of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Association of Urology (12,13). Accordingly, biopsy-naive men with lower than average risk of prostate cancer should not undergo prostate biopsy or MRI. However, limiting the options to prespecified PSA thresholds is not recommended, as there are many factors (eg, symptoms, age, race, family history, PSA kinetics, digital rectal examination findings) that in

show abstract

Comparison of Prostate Biopsy with or without Prebiopsy Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer Detection: An Observational Cohort Study

Cited by 30 publications

References 29 publications

What to expect from a non-suspicious prostate MRI? A review

What to expect from a non-suspicious prostate MRI? A review

Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Era: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PI-RADS Steering Committee: The PI-RADS Multiparametric MRI and MRI-directed Biopsy Pathway

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About