Faculty Bibliography

Background Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without targeted biopsy, is an alternative to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy for prostate-cancer detection in men with a raised prostate-specific antigen level who have not undergone biopsy. However, comparative evidence is limited. Methods In a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial, we assigned men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously to undergo MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, or standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. Men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group underwent a targeted biopsy (without standard biopsy cores) if the MRI was suggestive of prostate cancer; men whose MRI results were not suggestive of prostate cancer were not offered biopsy. Standard biopsy was a 10-to-12-core, transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. The primary outcome was the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically significant cancer. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer. Results A total of 500 men underwent randomization. In the MRI-targeted biopsy group, 71 of 252 men (28%) had MRI results that were not suggestive of prostate cancer, so they did not undergo biopsy. Clinically significant cancer was detected in 95 men (38%) in the MRI-targeted biopsy group, as compared with 64 of 248 (26%) in the standard-biopsy group (adjusted difference, 12 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4 to 20; P=0.005). MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, was noninferior to standard biopsy, and the 95% confidence interval indicated the superiority of this strategy over standard biopsy. Fewer men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group than in the standard-biopsy group received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer (adjusted difference, -13 percentage points; 95% CI, -19 to -7; P<0.001). Conclusions The use of risk assessment with MRI before biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy was superior to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy in men at clinical risk for prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and the European Association of Urology Research Foundation; PRECISION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02380027 .).

Introduction & Objectives: Standard of care for prostate cancer diagnosis in biopsy naive men is transrectal ultrasound guided prostate (TRUS) biopsy. Evidence is accumulating that MRI is useful in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer, and it is widely recommended after a negative biopsy. Controversy exists regarding its effectiveness before biopsy in all men. PRECISION aimed to evaluate whether multiparametric MRI and a targeted biopsy only (MRI+/-TB) was non-inferior to TRUS biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy naive men. Materials & Methods: PRECISION was a prospective, randomised, non-inferiority trial, carried out in 25 centres in 11 countries. 500 men were randomly allocated to 10-12 core TRUS-biopsy or MRI+/-TB. Men randomised to MRI+/-TB underwent MRI followed by targeted biopsy alone (without standard cores) if the PIRADSv2 score was >=3. MRI was either 1.5 or 3.0 T with at least a pelvic phased array coil, interpreted by a local radiologist, and image- registration technique was left to local expertise. Men with a PIRADSv2 score of 1-2 were not offered biopsy. Men in the 10-12 core TRUS-biopsy arm did not undergo pre-biopsy MRI. The primary outcome was the proportion of men diagnosed with clinically significant cancer (Gleason grade (GG) >= 3+4), with the non-inferiority margin for the difference in proportions set at -5%. Planned secondary outcomes included the proportion of men with clinically insignificant cancer (GG 3+3). Ethical approval was obtained for the study. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar in both MRI+/-TB and TRUS biopsy arms for mean age (64 vs 65), median PSA (6.8 vs 6.5), proportion of men with family history of prostate cancer (19% vs 16%) and proportion of men with abnormal digital rectal examination (14% vs 15%). Of 252 men randomised to MRI+/-TB, 71 (28%) avoided a biopsy. Clinically significant cancer was detected in 95 (38%) of 252 men in the MRI+/-TB arm compared to 64 (26%) of 248 men randomised to TRUS-biopsy (intention-to-treat analysis). Adjusting for centre effects, the absolute difference (MRI+/-TB versus TRUS-biopsy) in the proportion of men diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer was 11.8% (2-sided 95% CI 3.7 to 20.0; p = 0.005). The lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference is greater than -5% therefore MRI+/-TB was non-inferior to TRUS biopsy. Furthermore, the range of 95% CI was consistent with a claim of superiority of MRI+/-TB over TRUS-biopsy. MRI+/-TB also diagnosed fewer men with insignificant cancer than TRUS biopsy [23/252 (9%) vs 55/248 (22%), p<0.001]. Conclusions: Several benefits may be conferred by changing the standard of care from TRUS biopsy with standard cores alone, to MRI and targeted biopsy alone in men with suspicious MRI. These include fewer men biopsied, fewer cores taken, greater number of significant cancers diagnosed, and lower chance of diagnosing low risk cancer

Background: Traditional pathology reports of prostate biopsy mainly focus on presence of carcinoma but ignore other pathologic findings such as inflammation or hyperplasia. In the era of MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy (MRF-TB), where specific MRI regions of interest (ROI) are targeted for biopsy, these benign findings should be reported as they may guide decisions on when to repeat imaging or prostate biopsy. In this study, we reviewed MRF-TB prostate biopsies reported as negative for carcinoma to identify pathologic correlates to visible ROI on prostate MRI. Design: From 2012 to2016, 1595 men underwent a total of 1813 prebiopsy prostate MRI, followed by MRF-TB at our institution. We rereviewed the prostate biopsy cores for all patients with PI-RADS 4 or 5 (PI-RADS 4/5) ROI but had no cancer detected on MRF-TB. Pathologic findings were separated into two groups: significant pathologic findings (SPF, such as inflammation, hyperplasia, ASAP/HGPIN) and no significant pathologic findings (NSPF) with or without cancer in same/adjacent site on systematic biopsy (SB). Patients with repeat MRI and follow-up MRF-TB evaluation. Results: 497 men had PI-RADS 4/5 lesions out of 1595 initial biopsies. Of these 497 men, 101 (20%) had MRF-TB negative for carcinoma. Upon review, 54 had SPF and 47 had NSPF on MRF-TB. Of 54 men with SPF on initial MRF-TB, 31 had repeat MRI, 23 of 31 men downgraded in which 16 had repeat MRF-TB with 1 had cancer detect. The other 8 of 31 men had persistent PI-RADS 4/5 lesions, 3 were detected cancer on repeat MRF-TB. Of 47 men with NSPF on initial MRF-TB, 19 had PCa in the same/ adjacent site on SB and were considered as missed on MRF-TB; of the other 28, 13 underwent repeat MRI. 8 of 13 downgraded with 0 had PCa in the repeat MRF-TB and 5 of 13 men with persistent PI-RADS 4/5 lesions, 3 had PCa detect on repeat MRF-TB. Altogether, 22/47 (47%) of the cases with NSPF in the initial MRF-TB were missed cancer. Conclusions: 1/5 of the target biopsy cases on PI-RADS 4/5 ROI had negative cancer detection. Inflammation, nodular hyperplasia and HGPIN can account for some of the cases, and those were downgraded in followup MRI usually had a negative repeat biopsy. Cases with NSPF on MRF-TB for PI-RADS 4/5 lesions are likely (47%) missed PCa, high likelihood of persistent PI-RADS 4/5 ROI on repeat MRI and PCa detection on repeat biopsy. We suggest pathology findings beside cancer should be reported on MRF-TB biopsy as they can guide decisions on repeat imagine and biopsy