Yonsei Med J.  2017 Sep;58(5):994-999. 10.3349/ymj.2017.58.5.994.

Comparison of Multiparametric and Biparametric MRI in First Round Cognitive Targeted Prostate Biopsy in Patients with PSA Levels under 10 ng/mL

• Lee DH
• Nam JK
• Lee SS
• Han JY
• Lee JW
• Chung MK
• Park SW

• KMID: 2418936
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2017.58.5.994

Abstract

PURPOSE
To determine the efficacy of cognitive targeted prostate biopsy using biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (b-MRI) for patients with prostate-specific antigen levels under 10 ng/mL.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We reviewed data from 123 consecutive patients who underwent cognitive targeted prostate biopsy using prostate MRI. Of these patients, the first 55 underwent prostate biopsy using multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI), and the remaining 68 underwent prostate biopsy using b-MRI. For b-MRI, we generated T2 weighted axial imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging sequences. We found that 62 of the 123 men had suspicious lesions on MRI (32 of the 55 men in the mp-MRI group and 30 of the 68 men in the b-MRI group). We compared the prostate cancer detection rates and the proportions of clinically significant prostate cancer between the different MRI sequences.
RESULTS
Between the two MRI groups, there were no statistically significant differences in prostate cancer detection rate and proportions of clinically significant prostate cancer (41.8% vs. 30.9%, p=0.208 and 82.6% vs. 76.2%, p=0.598). Among the 62 men who had suspicious lesions on MRI, the prostate cancer detection rates were 62.5% and 63.3% (p=0.709) in the mp-MRI and b-MRI groups, respectively, and the proportions of clinically significant prostate cancer were 95.0% and 84.2% (p=0.267).
CONCLUSION
Prostate biopsy using b-MRI showed similar performance to that using mp-MRI for detecting prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer. Considering the satisfactory performance and cost effectiveness of b-MRI, this technique could be a good option for obtaining intraprostatic information for first round prostate biopsy.

Keyword

Prostate cancer; prostate biopsy; magnetic resonance imaging

MeSH Terms

Biopsy
*Cognition
Humans
*Image-Guided Biopsy
Magnetic Resonance Imaging/*methods
Male
Middle Aged
Prostate/*pathology
Prostate-Specific Antigen/*metabolism
Prostatectomy
Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnosis/*diagnostic imaging/pathology
Treatment Outcome
Prostate-Specific Antigen

Reference

1. Draisma G, Etzioni R, Tsodikov A, Mariotto A, Wever E, Gulati R, et al. Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening: importance of methods and context. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009; 101:374–383. PMID: 19276453.

2. Welch HG, Black WC. Overdiagnosis in cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010; 102:605–613. PMID: 20413742.

3. Lee DH, Koo KC, Lee SH, Rha KH, Choi YD, Hong SJ, et al. Low-risk prostate cancer patients without visible tumor (T1c) on multiparametric MRI could qualify for active surveillance candidate even if they did not meet inclusion criteria of active surveillance protocol. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2013; 43:553–558. PMID: 23580758.

4. Bul M, Zhu X, Rannikko A, Staerman F, Valdagni R, Pickles T, et al. Radical prostatectomy for low-risk prostate cancer following initial active surveillance: results from a prospective observational study. Eur Urol. 2012; 62:195–200. PMID: 22342775.

5. Selnæs KM, Heerschap A, Jensen LR, Tessem MB, Schweder GJ, Goa PE, et al. Peripheral zone prostate cancer localization by multiparametric magnetic resonance at 3 T: unbiased cancer identification by matching to histopathology. Invest Radiol. 2012; 47:624–633. PMID: 23011187.

6. Turkbey B, Pinto PA, Mani H, Bernardo M, Pang Y, McKinney YL, et al. Prostate cancer: value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection--histopathologic correlation. Radiology. 2010; 255:89–99. PMID: 20308447.

7. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong H, Stamatakis L, Vourganti S, Nix J, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013; 64:713–719. PMID: 23787357.

8. Lee DH, Nam JK, Park SW, Lee SS, Han JY, Lee SD, et al. Visually estimated MRI targeted prostate biopsy could improve the detection of significant prostate cancer in Patients with a PSA Level <10 ng/mL. Yonsei Med J. 2016; 57:565–571. PMID: 26996553.

9. Rastinehad AR, Baccala AA Jr, Chung PH, Proano JM, Kruecker J, Xu S, et al. D'Amico risk stratification correlates with degree of suspicion of prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol. 2011; 185:815–820. PMID: 21239006.

10. Yerram NK, Volkin D, Turkbey B, Nix J, Hoang AN, Vourganti S, et al. Low suspicion lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging predict for the absence of high-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2012; 110(11 Pt B):E783–E788. PMID: 23130821.

11. Stamatakis L, Siddiqui MM, Nix JW, Logan J, Rais-Bahrami S, Walton-Diaz A, et al. Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer. Cancer. 2013; 119:3359–3366. PMID: 23821585.

12. Rais-Bahrami S, Siddiqui MM, Turkbey B, Stamatakis L, Logan J, Hoang AN, et al. Utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging suspicion levels for detecting prostate cancer. J Urol. 2013; 190:1721–1727. PMID: 23727310.

13. Stojanov D, Aracki-Trenkic A, Benedeto-Stojanov D. Gadolinium deposition within the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus after repeated administrations of gadolinium-based contrast agents-current status. Neuroradiology. 2016; 58:433–441. PMID: 26873830.

14. Rais-Bahrami S, Siddiqui MM, Vourganti S, Turkbey B, Rastinehad AR, Stamatakis L, et al. Diagnostic value of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an adjunct to prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based detection of prostate cancer in men without prior biopsies. BJU Int. 2015; 115:381–388. PMID: 24447678.

15. Fascelli M, Rais-Bahrami S, Sankineni S, Brown AM, George AK, Ho R, et al. Combined biparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen in the detection of prostate cancer: a validation study in a biopsy-naive patient population. Urology. 2016; 88:125–134. PMID: 26680244.

16. Cheikh AB, Girouin N, Colombel M, Maréchal JM, Gelet A, Bissery A, et al. Evaluation of T2-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in localizing prostate cancer before repeat biopsy. Eur Radiol. 2009; 19:770–778. PMID: 18925403.

17. Delongchamps NB, Rouanne M, Flam T, Beuvon F, Liberatore M, Zerbib M, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the detection and localization of prostate cancer: combination of T2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted imaging. BJU Int. 2011; 107:1411–1418. PMID: 21044250.

18. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016; 69:16–40. PMID: 26427566.

19. de Rooij M, Crienen S, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM, Grutters JP. Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR-guided targeted biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in diagnosing prostate cancer: a modelling study from a health car+A1:B20e perspective. Eur Urol. 2014; 66:430–436. PMID: 24377803.