Does 1.5 T mpMRI play a definite role in detection of clinically significant prostate cancer? Findings from a prospective study comparing blind 24-core saturation and targeted biopsies with a novel data remodeling model
Multiparametric-magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) can accurately detect high-grade and larger prostate cancers (PC).
To evaluate the ability of 1.5 T magnetic field mpMRI-targeted Prostate Biopsies (PBx) in predicting PC in comparison with blind 24-core saturation PBx (sPBx).
We prospectively collected data from patients undergoing transrectal sPBx and, if needed, targeted PBx of suspected lesions based on the 16-‘region-of-interest’ (ROI) PI-RADS graph. Data remodeling: for each ‘target’ (each suspected lesion at mpMRI), we identified all the 16 ‘ROIs’ into which the lesion extended: these single ‘ROIs’ were identified as ‘macro-targets’. For each ‘ROI’ and ‘macro-target’, we compared the mpMRI result with that of a saturation and targeted biopsy (if performed).
1.5T mpMRI showed a PI-RADS value ≥ 3 in 101 patients (82.1%). We found a PC in 50 (40.6%). Negative-positive predictive values for mpMRI were 82–45%, respectively. Of the 22 patients with normal mpMRI, four had a PC, but none had a clinically significant cancer. After the data remodeling, we demonstrated the presence of PC in 228 ‘ROIs’: (a) only in targeted biopsies in 15 ‘ROIs’/’macro-targets’ (6.6%); (b) only in sPBx in 177 ‘ROIs’ (77.6%); (c) in both targeted and sPBx in 36 ‘ROIs’ (15.8%).
81.8% of patients with normal 1.5T mpMRI were negative at PBx. Performing only targeted PBx may lead to lack of PC diagnosis in about 50% of patients.
In patients with suspected PC and a previous negative PBx, a normal mpMRI may exclude a clinically significant PC, avoiding sPBx.
KeywodsMultiparametric MRI Prostate cancer Prostate biopsy
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Statement on the welfare of animals
This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 4.Pokorny MR, de Rooij M, Duncan E et al (2014) Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. Eur Urol 66:22–29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Tonttila PP, Lantto J, Pääkkö E et al (2016) Prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis in biopsy-naïve men with suspected prostate cancer based on elevated prostate-specific antigen values: results from a randomized prospective blinded controlled trial. Eur Urol 69:419–425CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Mowatt G, Scotland G, Boachie C et al (2013) The diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance spectroscopy and enhanced magnetic resonance imaging techniques in aiding the localisation of prostateabnormalities for biopsy: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 17:vii–xix. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta17200 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 25.Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D et al (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 68:438–450CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar