Diagnostic Pathway with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Standard Pathway: Results from a Randomized Prospective Study in Biopsy-naïve Patients with Suspected Prostate Cancer - PubMed (original) (raw)

Randomized Controlled Trial

. 2017 Aug;72(2):282-288.

doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.041. Epub 2016 Aug 27.

Matteo Manfredi 2, Fabrizio Mele 2, Marco Cossu 2, Enrico Bollito 3, Andrea Veltri 4, Stefano Cirillo 5, Daniele Regge 6, Riccardo Faletti 7, Roberto Passera 8, Cristian Fiori 2, Stefano De Luca 2

Affiliations

Free article

Randomized Controlled Trial

Diagnostic Pathway with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Standard Pathway: Results from a Randomized Prospective Study in Biopsy-naïve Patients with Suspected Prostate Cancer

Francesco Porpiglia et al. Eur Urol. 2017 Aug.

Free article

Abstract

Background: An approach based on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) might increase the detection rate (DR) of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).

Objective: To compare an mpMRI-based pathway with the standard approach for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) and csPCa.

Design, setting, and participants: Between November 2014 and April 2016, 212 biopsy-naïve patients with suspected PCa (prostate specific antigen level ≤15 ng/ml and negative digital rectal examination results) were included in this randomized clinical trial. Patients were randomized into a prebiopsy mpMRI group (arm A, n=107) or a standard biopsy (SB) group (arm B, n=105).

Intervention: In arm A, patients with mpMRI evidence of lesions suspected for PCa underwent mpMRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion software-guided targeted biopsy (TB) (n=81). The remaining patients in arm A (n=26) with negative mpMRI results and patients in arm B underwent 12-core SB.

Outcomes measurements and statistical analysis: The primary end point was comparison of the DR of PCa and csPCa between the two arms of the study; the secondary end point was comparison of the DR between TB and SB.

Results and limitations: The overall DRs were higher in arm A versus arm B for PCa (50.5% vs 29.5%, respectively; p=0.002) and csPCa (43.9% vs 18.1%, respectively; p<0.001). Concerning the biopsy approach, that is, TB in arm A, SB in arm A, and SB in arm B, the overall DRs were significantly different for PCa (60.5% vs 19.2% vs 29.5%, respectively; p<0.001) and for csPCa (56.8% vs 3.8% vs 18.1%, respectively; p<0.001). The reproducibility of the study could have been affected by the single-center nature.

Conclusions: A diagnostic pathway based on mpMRI had a higher DR than the standard pathway in both PCa and csPCa.

Patient summary: In this randomized trial, a pathway for the diagnosis of prostate cancer based on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) was compared with the standard pathway based on random biopsy. The mpMRI-based pathway had better performance than the standard pathway.

Keywords: Diagnosis; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostate cancer; Systematic random biopsy; Targeted biopsy.

Copyright © 2016 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

LinkOut - more resources