Individualised non-contrast MRI-based risk estimation and shared decision-making in men with a suspicion of prostate cancer: protocol for multicentre randomised controlled trial (multi-IMPROD V.2.0)

Otto Ettala, Ivan Jambor, Ileana Montoya Perez, Marjo Seppänen, Antti Kaipia, Heikki Seikkula, Kari T Syvänen, Pekka Taimen, Janne Verho, Aida Steiner, Jani Saunavaara, Ekaterina Saukko, Eliisa Löyttyniemi, Daniel D Sjoberg, Andrew Vickers, Hannu Aronen, Peter Boström, Otto Ettala, Ivan Jambor, Ileana Montoya Perez, Marjo Seppänen, Antti Kaipia, Heikki Seikkula, Kari T Syvänen, Pekka Taimen, Janne Verho, Aida Steiner, Jani Saunavaara, Ekaterina Saukko, Eliisa Löyttyniemi, Daniel D Sjoberg, Andrew Vickers, Hannu Aronen, Peter Boström

Abstract

Introduction: European Association of Urology and UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines recommend that all men with suspicions of prostate cancer should undergo prebiopsy contrast enhanced, that is, multiparametric prostate MRI. Subsequent prostate biopsies should also be performed if MRI is positive, that is, Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores 3-5. However, several retrospective post hoc analyses have shown that this approach still leads to many unnecessary biopsy procedures. For example, 88%-96% of men with PI-RADS, three findings are still diagnosed with clinically non-significant prostate cancer or no cancer at all.

Methods and analysis: This is a prospective, randomised, controlled, multicentre trial, being conducted in Finland, to demonstrate non-inferiority in clinically significant cancer detection rates among men undergoing prostate biopsies post-MRI and men undergoing prostate biopsies post-MRI only after a shared decision based on individualised risk estimation. Men without previous diagnosis of prostate cancer and with abnormal digital rectal examination findings and/or prostate-specific antigen between 2.5 ug/L and 20.0 ug/L are included. We aim to recruit 830 men who are randomised at a 1:1 ratio into control (all undergo biopsies after MRI) and intervention arms (the decision to perform biopsies is based on risk estimation and shared decision-making). The primary outcome of the study is the proportion of men with clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason 4+3 prostate cancer or higher). We will also compare the overall biopsy rate, benign biopsy rate and the detection of non-significant prostate cancer between the two study groups.

Ethics and dissemination: The study (protocol V.2.0, 4 January 2021) was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Hospital District of Southwest Finland (IORG number: 0001744, IBR number: 00002216; trial number: 99/1801/2019). Participants are required to provide written informed consent. Full reports of this study will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals, mainly urology and radiology.

Trial registration number: NCT04287088; the study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov.

Keywords: magnetic resonance imaging; prostate disease; urological tumours.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: PT reports representation as a member of the Data Management Committee in the ProScreen trial. AV is named as a co-inventor on US patent number: 9 672 329 for a statistical method to predict the result of prostate biopsy. Patent has been commercialised and will receive royalties from clinical use. AV is also a co-inventor of the 4kscore, a commercially available reflex test for predicting prostate biopsy. He may receive royalties from sales of the test. He owns stock options in Opko, which offers the test. Otherwise, no competing interest was declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flow chart. Bx, prostate biopsies; IMPROD bpMRI, bi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging of prostate performed according to IMPROD MRI protocol (http://mrc.utu.fi/protocols/prostate); PSA, prostate specific antigen; TRUS, transrectal ultrasound of prostate.

References

    1. Seikkula HA, Kaipia AJ, Rantanen ME, et al. . Stage-specific mortality and survival trends of prostate cancer patients in Finland before and after introduction of PSA. Acta Oncol 2017;56:971–7. 10.1080/0284186X.2017.1288298
    1. Wong MCS, Goggins WB, Wang HHX, et al. . Global incidence and mortality for prostate cancer: analysis of temporal patterns and trends in 36 countries. Eur Urol 2016;70:862–74. 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.05.043
    1. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Briers E. EAU – ESTRO – ESUR – SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. EDN. presented at the EAU annual Congress Copenhagen 2018. 978-94-92671-02-8. Arnhem, The Netherlands: EAU Guidelines Office, 2018.
    1. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. . Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017;389:815–22. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
    1. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. . MRI-Targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018;378:1767–77. 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
    1. Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, et al. . Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 2019;20:100–9. 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2
    1. Jambor I, Boström PJ, Taimen P, et al. . Novel biparametric MRI and targeted biopsy improves risk stratification in men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer (IMPROD trial). J Magn Reson Imaging 2017;46:1089–95. 10.1002/jmri.25641
    1. Jambor I, Verho J, Ettala O, et al. . Validation of IMPROD biparametric MRI in men with clinically suspected prostate cancer: a prospective multi-institutional trial. PLoS Med 2019;16:e1002813. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002813
    1. Grönberg H, Eklund M, Picker W, et al. . Prostate cancer diagnostics using a combination of the Stockholm3 blood test and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Urol 2018;74:722–8. 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.06.022
    1. Boesen L, Nørgaard N, Løgager V, et al. . Assessment of the diagnostic accuracy of Biparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer in Biopsy-Naive men: the Biparametric MRI for detection of prostate cancer (BIDOC) study. JAMA Netw Open 2018;1:e180219. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0219
    1. van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B, et al. . Head-To-Head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in Biopsy-naïve men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol 2019;75:570–8. 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023
    1. Vickers A, Carlsson SV, Cooperberg M. Routine use of magnetic resonance imaging for early detection of prostate cancer is not justified by the clinical trial evidence. Eur Urol 2020;78:304–6. 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.04.016
    1. Knaapila J, Jambor I, Perez IM, et al. . Prebiopsy IMPROD Biparametric magnetic resonance imaging combined with prostate-specific antigen density in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: an external validation study. Eur Urol Oncol 2020;3:648–56. 10.1016/j.euo.2019.08.008
    1. Falagario UG, Jambor I, Lantz A, et al. . Combined use of prostate-specific antigen density and magnetic resonance imaging for prostate biopsy decision planning: a retrospective multi-institutional study using the prostate magnetic resonance imaging outcome database (PROMOD). Eur Urol Oncol 2021;4:971–9. 10.1016/j.euo.2020.08.014
    1. NICE . NICE Guidance - Prostate Cancer: Diagnosis and Management: © NICE (2019) Prostate Cancer: Diagnosis and Management. 124. BJU international, 2019.
    1. Kranse R, Roobol M, Schröder FH. A graphical device to represent the outcomes of a logistic regression analysis. Prostate 2008;68:1674–80. 10.1002/pros.20840
    1. Thompson IM, Ankerst DP, Chi C, et al. . Assessing prostate cancer risk: results from the prostate cancer prevention trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:529–34. 10.1093/jnci/djj131
    1. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, et al. . Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol 2019;76:340–51. 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
    1. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al. . The 2014 International Society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 2016;40:244–52. 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530
    1. Roth AJ, Rosenfeld B, Kornblith AB, et al. . The Memorial anxiety scale for prostate cancer: validation of a new scale to measure anxiety in men with with prostate cancer. Cancer 2003;97:2910–8. 10.1002/cncr.11386
    1. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205–13. 10.1097/
    1. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, et al. . Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009;42:377–81. 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
    1. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, et al. . The REDCap Consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform 2019;95:103208. 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208
    1. Ahdoot M, Wilbur AR, Reese SE, et al. . MRI-Targeted, systematic, and combined biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med Overseas Ed 2020;382:917–28. 10.1056/NEJMoa1910038
    1. Klotz L, Chin J, Black PC, et al. . Comparison of multiparametric magnetic resonance Imaging-Targeted biopsy with systematic transrectal ultrasonography biopsy for Biopsy-Naive men at risk for prostate cancer: a phase 3 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 2021;7:534. 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.7589

Source: PubMed

3
Suscribir