URO ONCO

Welcome, this website is intended for all international healthcare professionals in uro-oncology. By clicking the link below you are declaring and confirming that you are a healthcare professional.

You are here

Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer

JAMA. 2015 Jan 27;313(4):390-7

JAMA. 2015 Jan 27;313(4):390-7

 

Abstract

IMPORTANCE:

Targeted magnetic resonance (MR)/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy has been shown to detect prostate cancer. The implications of targeted biopsy alone vs standard extended-sextant biopsy or the 2 modalities combined are not well understood.

OBJECTIVE:

To assess targeted vs standard biopsy and the 2 approaches combined for the diagnosis of intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:

Prospective cohort study of 1003 men undergoing both targeted and standard biopsy concurrently from 2007 through 2014 at the National Cancer Institute in the United States. Patients were referred for elevated level of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) or abnormal digital rectal examination results, often with prior negative biopsy results. Risk categorization was compared among targeted and standard biopsy and, when available, whole-gland pathology after prostatectomy as the "gold standard."

INTERVENTIONS:

Patients underwent multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging to identify regions of prostate cancer suspicion followed by targeted MR/ultrasound fusion biopsy and concurrent standard biopsy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:

The primary objective was to compare targeted and standard biopsy approaches for detection of high-risk prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥ 4 + 3); secondary end points focused on detection of low-risk prostate cancer (Gleason score 3 + 3 or low-volume 3 + 4) and the biopsy ability to predict whole-gland pathology at prostatectomy.

RESULTS:

Targeted MR/ultrasound fusion biopsy diagnosed 461 prostate cancer cases, and standard biopsy diagnosed 469 cases. There was exact agreement between targeted and standard biopsy in 690 men (69%) undergoing biopsy. Targeted biopsy diagnosed 30% more high-risk cancers vs standard biopsy (173 vs 122 cases, P < .001) and 17% fewer low-risk cancers (213 vs 258 cases, P < .001). When standard biopsy cores were combined with the targeted approach, an additional 103 cases (22%) of mostly low-risk prostate cancer were diagnosed (83% low risk, 12% intermediate risk, and 5% high risk). The predictive ability of targeted biopsy for differentiating low-risk from intermediate- and high-risk disease in 170 men with whole-gland pathology after prostatectomy was greater than that of standard biopsy or the 2 approaches combined (area under the curve, 0.73, 0.59, and 0.67, respectively; P < .05 for all comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:

Among men undergoing biopsy for suspected prostate cancer, targeted MR/ultrasound fusion biopsy, compared with standard extended-sextant ultrasound-guided biopsy, was associated with increased detection of high-risk prostate cancer and decreased detection of low-risk prostate cancer. Future studies will be needed to assess the ultimate clinical implications of targeted biopsy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION:

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00102544.

Comment in

Targeted biopsy with MRI and ultrasound improves detection of high risk prostate cancer. [BMJ. 2015]
MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy in prostate cancer: what is the evidentiary standard? [JAMA. 2015]
Decision curve analysis. [JAMA. 2015]

Comment from Henk van der Poel: Targeting the way to go: 30% more high risk cancers detected and 17% less low risk. Time to set sextant biopsies aside.

E-Alert

Subscribe to our E-Alert to keep up to date with the new items in the Resource Centre

Subscribe

URO ONCO is made possible by an unrestricted educational grant from:

The editorial independence of the resource centre is mandatory and recognized by the EAU and Elsevier.

The journal articles, videos and statements published on the resource centre have been selected independently and without influence from Elsevier, European Urology Editors or the sponsor and do not necessarily reflect their opinions or views.