MRI-Targeted, Systematic, and Combined Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis - PubMed (original) (raw)
Clinical Trial
. 2020 Mar 5;382(10):917-928.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910038.
Andrew R Wilbur 1, Sarah E Reese 1, Amir H Lebastchi 1, Sherif Mehralivand 1, Patrick T Gomella 1, Jonathan Bloom 1, Sandeep Gurram 1, Minhaj Siddiqui 1, Paul Pinsky 1, Howard Parnes 1, W Marston Linehan 1, Maria Merino 1, Peter L Choyke 1, Joanna H Shih 1, Baris Turkbey 1, Bradford J Wood 1, Peter A Pinto 1
Affiliations
- PMID: 32130814
- PMCID: PMC7323919
- DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910038
Clinical Trial
MRI-Targeted, Systematic, and Combined Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis
Michael Ahdoot et al. N Engl J Med. 2020.
Abstract
Background: The use of 12-core systematic prostate biopsy is associated with diagnostic inaccuracy that contributes to both overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis of prostate cancer. Biopsies performed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) targeting may reduce the misclassification of prostate cancer in men with MRI-visible lesions.
Methods: Men with MRI-visible prostate lesions underwent both MRI-targeted and systematic biopsy. The primary outcome was cancer detection according to grade group (i.e., a clustering of Gleason grades). Grade group 1 refers to clinically insignificant disease; grade group 2 or higher, cancer with favorable intermediate risk or worse; and grade group 3 or higher, cancer with unfavorable intermediate risk or worse. Among the men who underwent subsequent radical prostatectomy, upgrading and downgrading of grade group from biopsy to whole-mount histopathological analysis of surgical specimens were recorded. Secondary outcomes were the detection of cancers of grade group 2 or higher and grade group 3 or higher, cancer detection stratified by previous biopsy status, and grade reclassification between biopsy and radical prostatectomy.
Results: A total of 2103 men underwent both biopsy methods; cancer was diagnosed in 1312 (62.4%) by a combination of the two methods (combined biopsy), and 404 (19.2%) underwent radical prostatectomy. Cancer detection rates on MRI-targeted biopsy were significantly lower than on systematic biopsy for grade group 1 cancers and significantly higher for grade groups 3 through 5 (P<0.01 for all comparisons). Combined biopsy led to cancer diagnoses in 208 more men (9.9%) than with either method alone and to upgrading to a higher grade group in 458 men (21.8%). However, if only MRI-target biopsies had been performed, 8.8% of clinically significant cancers (grade group ≥3) would have been misclassified. Among the 404 men who underwent subsequent radical prostatectomy, combined biopsy was associated with the fewest upgrades to grade group 3 or higher on histopathological analysis of surgical specimens (3.5%), as compared with MRI-targeted biopsy (8.7%) and systematic biopsy (16.8%).
Conclusions: Among patients with MRI-visible lesions, combined biopsy led to more detection of all prostate cancers. However, MRI-targeted biopsy alone underestimated the histologic grade of some tumors. After radical prostatectomy, upgrades to grade group 3 or higher on histopathological analysis were substantially lower after combined biopsy. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others; Trio Study ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00102544.).
Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Conflict of interest statement
No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Figures
Figure 1.. Enrollment and Outcomes.
All 2103 men who were included in the primary analysis underwent two methods of prostate biopsy: one that targeted lesions with the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and one that systematically removed 12 biopsy cores with ultrasonographic guidance (systematic biopsy). Rates of cancer detection by each of these methods and in combination (combined biopsy) were included in the primary analysis. Among the patients in whom prostate cancer was diagnosed, various treatment options were offered, including active surveillance, prostatectomy, external-beam radiation, and focal therapy. Among the patients who underwent radical prostatectomy, the investigators correlated the initial biopsy findings with the cancer grade group as determined on whole-mount histopathological analysis after surgery.
Figure 2.. Prostate Cancer Detection According to Biopsy Method.
Shown are the total numbers and percentages of cancers that were detected by systematic biopsy, MRI-targeted biopsy, and a combination of the two methods in each of the five grade groups among the 2103 patients who were included in the primary analysis. The difference in the rates of cancer detection between systematic biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy were significant for grade group 1 (P<0.001), group 3 (P = 0.004), group 4 (P<0.001), and group 5 (P = 0.003). A P value of less than 0.01 was considered to indicate statistical significance after the use of the Bonferroni correction to account for the five primary grade groups. MRI-targeted biopsy led to the detection of significantly more cancers than systematic biopsy in groups 3, 4, and 5. Systematic biopsy led to the detection of significantly more cancers than MRI-targeted biopsy in group 1. Also shown are the numbers and percentages of patients who received an upgraded diagnosis on the basis of the biopsy method that was used. When cancer detection rates were clustered in grade group 2 or higher or in grade group 3 or higher, MRI-targeted biopsy showed a higher rate of cancer detection than systematic biopsy. Newly detected cancers in grade group 1 were seen with the combination of all biopsy methods but were most pronounced with the use of systematic biopsy alone. In the combined-biopsy group, a new diagnosis of grade group 1 cancer (in 105 patients [5.0%]) was defined as the total number of grade group 1 cancer diagnoses on combined biopsy (in 394 patients) minus all grade group 1 diagnoses on targeted biopsy alone (in 289 patients). Details regarding the statistical analysis are provided in the Supplementary Appendix.
Figure 3.. Cross-Tabulation of Highest Grade Group Detected by Biopsy Method.
Shown are the numbers and percentages of the 2103 men who were included in the primary analysis in whom no prostate cancer was diagnosed or in whom prostate cancer was diagnosed (grade groups 1 through 5) on systematic biopsy or MRI-targeted biopsy. The areas that are shaded in gray indicate the men in whom systematic biopsy and targeted biopsy detected cancer of the same grade group. The areas that are shaded in blue indicate the men who were found to have a cancer in a higher grade group on MRI-targeted biopsy, and the areas that are shaded in green indicate the men who were found to have cancer in a higher grade group on systematic biopsy.
Figure 4.. Downgrading and Upgrading of Cancer Grade Group after Whole-Mount Histopathological Analysis, According to Biopsy Method.
Among the 404 men who underwent radical prostatectomy, shown are the numbers and percentages of those in whom the grade group of prostate cancer was downgraded or upgraded after whole-mount histopathological analysis of surgical specimens according to the biopsy method that was used. The areas that are shaded in blue indicate the downgrading of events from biopsy to whole-mount analysis, and the areas shaded in red indicate the upgrading of events. Darker colors represent more extreme levels of downgrading or upgrading. The lowest percentage of upgrading events was seen with combined biopsy (14.4%) and the highest with systematic biopsy (41.6%). Differences in rates of upgrading between systematic and MRI-targeted biopsy were significant for upgrading of any grade group (P = 0.002), upgrading to grade group 2 or higher (P<0.001), and upgrading to grade group 3 or higher (P<0.001). The differences in rates of downgrading were not significant for any grouping. A P value of less than 0.006 was considered to indicate statistical significance with the use of the Bonferroni correction to account for the eight secondary outcomes. Results of the statistical analyses are shown in Table S5.
Comment in
- MRI, TRUS or both?
Sidaway P. Sidaway P. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2020 May;17(5):274. doi: 10.1038/s41571-020-0358-2. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2020. PMID: 32203276 No abstract available. - MRI, TRUS or both?
Sidaway P. Sidaway P. Nat Rev Urol. 2020 May;17(5):256. doi: 10.1038/s41585-020-0311-2. Nat Rev Urol. 2020. PMID: 32218543 No abstract available. - Re: MRI-Targeted, Systematic, and Combined Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis.
Radtke JP, Hadaschik B. Radtke JP, et al. Eur Urol. 2020 Aug;78(2):291-292. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.04.014. Epub 2020 May 4. Eur Urol. 2020. PMID: 32381459 No abstract available. - Re: MRI-Targeted, Systematic, and Combined Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis.
Rodríguez Sánchez L, Macek P, Barbé Y, Cathelineau X, Sanchez-Salas R. Rodríguez Sánchez L, et al. Eur Urol. 2020 Sep;78(3):469-470. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.04.022. Epub 2020 May 6. Eur Urol. 2020. PMID: 32387122 No abstract available. - Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis.
Scholz M, Lam R, Turner J. Scholz M, et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Jun 4;382(23):2270. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2007985. N Engl J Med. 2020. PMID: 32492311 No abstract available. - Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis.
Stanzione A, Imbriaco M, Cuocolo R. Stanzione A, et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Jun 4;382(23):2270-2271. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2007985. N Engl J Med. 2020. PMID: 32492312 No abstract available. - Commentary on "MRI-Targeted, Systematic, and Combined Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis".
George AK, Margolis DJ. George AK, et al. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021 Mar;216(3):584. doi: 10.2214/AJR.20.24319. Epub 2021 Jan 21. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021. PMID: 32755211 No abstract available. - Re: MRI-Targeted, Systematic, and Combined Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis.
Taneja SS. Taneja SS. J Urol. 2020 Dec;204(6):1382-1383. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001283.02. Epub 2020 Sep 23. J Urol. 2020. PMID: 32960703 No abstract available. - Biopsy in Prostate Cancer. More Is Better.
Ibarra-Rovira JJ, Kundra V. Ibarra-Rovira JJ, et al. Radiol Imaging Cancer. 2020 Jul 31;2(4):e204019. doi: 10.1148/rycan.2020204019. eCollection 2020 Jul. Radiol Imaging Cancer. 2020. PMID: 33778726 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
Similar articles
- Pre-biopsy 3-Tesla MRI and targeted biopsy of the index prostate cancer: correlation with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
Patel U, Dasgupta P, Challacombe B, Cahill D, Brown C, Patel R, Kirby R. Patel U, et al. BJU Int. 2017 Jan;119(1):82-90. doi: 10.1111/bju.13525. Epub 2016 Jun 3. BJU Int. 2017. PMID: 27153933 - Prostate cancer screening using a combination of risk-prediction, MRI, and targeted prostate biopsies (STHLM3-MRI): a prospective, population-based, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial.
Nordström T, Discacciati A, Bergman M, Clements M, Aly M, Annerstedt M, Glaessgen A, Carlsson S, Jäderling F, Eklund M, Grönberg H; STHLM3 study group. Nordström T, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2021 Sep;22(9):1240-1249. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00348-X. Epub 2021 Aug 13. Lancet Oncol. 2021. PMID: 34391509 Clinical Trial. - Impact of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeting on Pathologic Upgrading and Downgrading at Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Weinstein IC, Wu X, Hill A, Brennan D, Omil-Lima D, Basourakos S, Brant A, Lewicki P, Al Hussein Al Awamlh B, Spratt D, Bittencourt LK, Scherr D, Zaorsky NG, Nagar H, Hu J, Barbieri C, Ponsky L, Vickers AJ, Shoag JE. Weinstein IC, et al. Eur Urol Oncol. 2023 Aug;6(4):355-365. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2023.04.004. Epub 2023 May 25. Eur Urol Oncol. 2023. PMID: 37236832 Review. - The Key Combined Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted and Concomitant Systematic Biopsies for the Prediction of Adverse Pathological Features in Prostate Cancer Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy.
Gandaglia G, Ploussard G, Valerio M, Mattei A, Fiori C, Roumiguié M, Fossati N, Stabile A, Beauval JB, Malavaud B, Scuderi S, Barletta F, Moschini M, Zamboni S, Rakauskas A, Tian Z, Karakiewicz PI, De Cobelli F, Porpiglia F, Montorsi F, Briganti A. Gandaglia G, et al. Eur Urol. 2020 Jun;77(6):733-741. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.005. Epub 2019 Sep 21. Eur Urol. 2020. PMID: 31547938 - Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review.
Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F, Bokhorst LP, Rannikko A, Klotz L, Villers A, Hugosson J, Moore CM. Schoots IG, et al. Eur Urol. 2015 Apr;67(4):627-36. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.050. Epub 2014 Nov 15. Eur Urol. 2015. PMID: 25511988 Review.
Cited by
- Magnetic Resonance-Guided Cancer Therapy Radiomics and Machine Learning Models for Response Prediction.
Fajemisin JA, Gonzalez G, Rosenberg SA, Ullah G, Redler G, Latifi K, Moros EG, El Naqa I. Fajemisin JA, et al. Tomography. 2024 Sep 2;10(9):1439-1454. doi: 10.3390/tomography10090107. Tomography. 2024. PMID: 39330753 Free PMC article. Review. - Role of Systematic Biopsy in the Era of Targeted Biopsy: A Review.
Malewski W, Milecki T, Tayara O, Poletajew S, Kryst P, Tokarczyk A, Nyk Ł. Malewski W, et al. Curr Oncol. 2024 Sep 3;31(9):5171-5194. doi: 10.3390/curroncol31090383. Curr Oncol. 2024. PMID: 39330011 Free PMC article. Review. - Sociodemographic disparities in prostate cancer imaging.
Sundaresan V, Lokeshwar S, Sutherland R, Sohoni N, Golos A, Ajjawi I, Leapman M. Sundaresan V, et al. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2024 Sep 26. doi: 10.1007/s00261-024-04603-2. Online ahead of print. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2024. PMID: 39325212 Review. - Prognostic significance of the PI-RADS score in men with prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy.
Nwanze J, Teramoto Y, Wang Y, Miyamoto H. Nwanze J, et al. Am J Clin Exp Urol. 2024 Aug 25;12(4):162-172. doi: 10.62347/BODM5001. eCollection 2024. Am J Clin Exp Urol. 2024. PMID: 39308595 Free PMC article. - Trends in pre-biopsy MRI usage for prostate cancer detection, 2007-2022.
Soerensen SJC, Li S, Langston ME, Fan RE, Rusu M, Sonn GA. Soerensen SJC, et al. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2024 Sep 21. doi: 10.1038/s41391-024-00896-y. Online ahead of print. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2024. PMID: 39306635
References
- Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, et al. 10-Year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1415–24. - PubMed
- Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in prostate cancer — 29-year follow-up. N Engl J Med 2018;379:2319–29. - PubMed
- Godtman RA, Holmberg E, Khatami A, Stranne J, Hugosson J. Outcome following active surveillance of men with screen-detected prostate cancer: results from the Göteborg randomised population-based prostate cancer screening trial. Eur Urol 2013;63:101–7. - PubMed
- Klotz L, Vesprini D, Sethukavalan P, et al. Long-term follow-up of a large active surveillance cohort of patients with prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:272–7. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical