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

Lars Boesen, Nis Nørgaard, Vibeke Løgager, Ingegerd Balslev, Rasmus Bisbjerg, Karen-Cecilie Thestrup, Mads D Winther, Henrik Jakobsen, Henrik S Thomsen, Lars Boesen, Nis Nørgaard, Vibeke Løgager, Ingegerd Balslev, Rasmus Bisbjerg, Karen-Cecilie Thestrup, Mads D Winther, Henrik Jakobsen, Henrik S Thomsen

Abstract

Importance: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) enhances detection and risk stratification for significant prostate cancer but is time-consuming (approximately 40 minutes) and expensive. Rapid and simpler (approximately 15-minute) biparametric MRI (bpMRI) using fewer scan sequences could be implemented as a prostate MRI triage test on a larger scale before performing biopsies.

Objectives: To assess the diagnostic accuracy and negative predictive value (NPV) of a novel bpMRI method in biopsy-naive men in detecting and ruling out significant prostate cancer in confirmatory biopsies.

Design, setting, and participants: A single-institutional, paired, prospective cohort study of biopsy-naive men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer from November 1, 2015, to June 15, 2017.

Interventions: All patients underwent bpMRI (T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted imaging) followed by standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies (all men) and targeted biopsies of men with suspicious bpMRI findings.

Main outcomes and measures: Suspicion grades of bpMRI, biopsy results, and NPV of bpMRI were evaluated for detection of or ruling out significant prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥4 + 3 or maximum cancerous core length >50% for Gleason score 3 + 4). We compared the diagnostic performance of standard biopsies in all men vs standard plus targeted (combined) biopsies restricted to men with suspicious bpMRI findings. The reference standard was combined biopsy results from all men.

Results: A total of 1020 men were enrolled, with a median age of 67 years (interquartile range, 61-71 years) and a median prostate-specific antigen level of 8.0 ng/mL (interquartile range, 5.7-13.0 ng/mL). Combined biopsies detected any and significant prostate cancer in 655 of 1020 men (64%) and 404 of 1020 men (40%), respectively. Restricting combined biopsies to men with suspicious bpMRI findings meant 305 of 1020 men (30%) with low-suspicious bpMRIs could avoid prostate biopsies (biopsy in 715 men with suspicious bpMRIs vs all 1020 men who required standard biopsies [70%]; P < .001). Significant prostate cancer diagnoses were improved by 11% (396 vs 351 men; P < .001), and insignificant prostate cancer diagnoses were reduced by 40% (173 vs 288 men; P < .001) compared with our current diagnostic standard, standard biopsies alone in all men. The NPV of bpMRI findings in ruling out significant prostate cancer was 97% (95% CI, 95%-99%).

Conclusions and relevance: Low-suspicion bpMRI has a high NPV in ruling out significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men. Using a simple and rapid bpMRI method as a triage test seems to improve risk stratification and may be used to exclude aggressive disease and avoid unnecessary biopsies with its inherent risks. Future studies are needed to fully explore its role in clinical prostate cancer management.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Boesen reported receiving grants from the Beckett Foundation during the conduct of the study and receiving personal fees from Sanofi-Aventis and grants from Dr Sofus Carl Emil Friis and Olga Doris Friis outside the submitted work. Dr Jakobsen reported receiving personal fees from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Janssen-Cilag, and Sanofi-Aventis outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure 1.. Flowchart of the Study Population
Figure 1.. Flowchart of the Study Population
A total of 1063 men were included. However, 43 were excluded for various reasons. The final study population consisted of 1020 men who completed all examinations. MRI indicates magnetic resonance imaging; bpMRI, biparametric MRI.
Figure 2.. Comparison of the Diagnostic Performances…
Figure 2.. Comparison of the Diagnostic Performances of Biopsy Strategies
The diagnostic performance consisted of standard biopsies in all men (N = 1020), combined (standard plus targeted) biopsies restricted to men with suspicious biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) findings (n = 715), and combined biopsies in all men (reference standard) (N = 1020). Biopsy results were stratified by cancer significance (primary definition). insPCa indicates insignificant prostate cancer; PCa, prostate cancer; PImod, modified Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score; and sPCa, significant PCa.

References

    1. Eggener SE, Cifu AS, Nabhan C. Prostate cancer screening. JAMA. 2015;314(8):-.
    1. Gandaglia G, Briganti A, Fossati N, et al. . The problem is not what to do with indolent and harmless prostate cancer—the problem is how to avoid finding these cancers. Eur Urol. 2016;70(4):547-548.
    1. Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, et al. . Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64(6):876-892.
    1. Litwin MS, Tan H-J. The diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer: a review. JAMA. 2017;317(24):2532-2542.
    1. Loeb S, Dani H. Whom to biopsy: prediagnostic risk stratification with biomarkers, nomograms, and risk calculators. Urol Clin North Am. 2017;44(4):517-524.
    1. Cucchiara V, Cooperberg MR, Dall’Era M, et al. . Genomic markers in prostate cancer decision making. Eur Urol. 2017;(73):572-582.
    1. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. ; PROMIS Study Group . Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389(10071):815-822.
    1. Hamoen EHJ, de Rooij M, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Use of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) for prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015;67(6):1112-1121.
    1. Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MGM. 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. 2015;68(3):438-450.
    1. Fütterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P, et al. . Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2015;68(6):1045-1053.
    1. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, et al. . Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA. 2015;313(4):390-397.
    1. Filson CP, Natarajan S, Margolis DJA, et al. . Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: the role of systematic and targeted biopsies. Cancer. 2016;122(6):884-892.
    1. Moldovan PC, Van den Broeck T, Sylvester R, et al. . What is the negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in excluding prostate cancer at biopsy? a systematic review and meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol. 2017;72(2):250-266.
    1. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ; European Society of Urogenital Radiology . ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(4):746-757.
    1. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. . PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69(1):16-40.
    1. Rosenkrantz AB, Verma S, Choyke P, et al. . Prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a prior negative biopsy: a consensus statement by AUA and SAR. J Urol. 2016;196(6):1613-1618.
    1. Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V, Eggener S, et al. ; START Consortium . Standards of Reporting for MRI-Targeted Biopsy Studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an international working group. Eur Urol. 2013;64(4):544-552.
    1. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. ; STARD Group . STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. Clin Chem. 2015;61(12):1446-1452.
    1. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. . EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer, part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71(4):618-629.
    1. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL; ISUP Grading Committee . The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29(9):1228-1242.
    1. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA; Grading Committee . 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(2):244-252.
    1. Liss MA, Ehdaie B, Loeb S, et al. . An update of the American Urological Association white paper on the prevention and treatment of the more common complications related to prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2017;198(2):329-334.
    1. Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, et al. ; ProtecT Study Group . 10-Year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(15):1415-1424.
    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(4):1089-1095.
    1. Rais-Bahrami S, Siddiqui MM, Vourganti S, 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(3):381-388.
    1. Kuhl CK, Bruhn R, Krämer N, Nebelung S, Heidenreich A, Schrading S. Abbreviated biparametric prostate MR imaging in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen. Radiology. 2017;285(2):493-505.
    1. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. ; ERSPC Investigators . Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet. 2014;384(9959):2027-2035.
    1. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL III, et al. ; PLCO Project Team . Prostate cancer screening in the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial: mortality results after 13 years of follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012;104(2):125-132.
    1. Tsodikov A, Gulati R, Heijnsdijk EAM, et al. . Reconciling the effects of screening on prostate cancer mortality in the ERSPC and PLCO Trials. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(7):449-455.
    1. Valerio M, Donaldson I, Emberton M, et al. . Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2015;68(1):8-19.
    1. Gayet M, van der Aa A, Beerlage HP, Schrier BP, Mulders PFA, Wijkstra H. The value of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography (MRI/US)-fusion biopsy platforms in prostate cancer detection: a systematic review. BJU Int. 2016;117(3):392-400.

Source: PubMed

Подписаться