Retrospective analysis of prostate cancer detection using mpMR/US-fusion and cognitive biopsy

Introduction. Transrectal biopsy under US-control has been standard diagnostic method for prostate cancer (PCa) detection for over 30 years. However, TRUS-guided biopsy is not without well-known drawbacks. MR-targeted biopsy methods were proposed to eliminate the drawbacks and improve detection rate of clinically significant Pca. Cognitive and mpMR/US-fusion biopsies have become the most widely used MR-targeted biopsies. However, there are contradictory data on detection of clinically significant Pca when comparing mpMR/US-fusion and cognitive biopsies.

Objective. To compare the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer performing cognitive and mpMR/US-fusion biopsies.

Materials and methods. Inclusion criteria: PSA > 2.0 ng/ml and/or a positive DRE, and/or a suspicious lesion on TRUS, and PI-RADSv2.1 score ≥ 3. The outcomes evaluated are the detection of clinically significant Pca (ISUP ≥ 2), the overall PСa detection, the detection of clinically insignificant Pca, histological yield (proportion of positive cores, maximum cancer core length).

Results. Retrospective data analysis was performed: cognitive biopsy was performed in 102 patients and mpMR/US-fusion biopsy in 176 patients. The median age was 63 years, prostate volume 46 cc. The median PSA was 6.4 ng/ml in the mpMR/US-fusion and 6.7 ng/ml in the cognitive biopsy group. MpMR/US-fusion and cognitive biopsies were comparable about the detection rate of clinically significant (30.3% vs 25.0%; p=0.329) and overall Pca detection rate (50.5% and 42.1%; p = 0.176). It was detected to be less clinically insignificant Pca in the cognitive biopsy group (11.8% vs. 25.5%; p = 0.007).  The proportion of positive cores (30.5% and 29.5% respectively; p = 0.754) and maximum cancer core length (6.6 mm vs 7.6 mm; p = 0.320) were equal when comparing cognitive and mpMR/US-fusion biopsies. The proportion of positive cores with clinically significant Pca was higher in the cognitive biopsy group (18.6% vs 13.1%; p = 0.029).

Conclusion. Both cognitive and mpMR/US-fusion biopsies are equally accurate for clinically significant Pca detection. Therefore, cognitive biopsy may be an alternative to mpMR/US-fusion biopsy in hospitals where mpMR/US-fusion technology is not currently available.

1. Wagenlehner FM, van Oostrum E, Tenke P, Tandogdu Z, Çek M, Grabe M, Wullt B, Pickard R, Naber KG, Pilatz A, Weidner W, Bjerklund-Johansen TE; GPIU investigators. Infective complications after prostate biopsy: outcome of the Global Prevalence Study of Infections in Urology (GPIU) 2010 and 2011, a prospective multinational multicentre prostate biopsy study. Eur Urol. 2013;63(3):521-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.06.003

2. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol. 1989;142(1):71-4; discussion 74-5. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)38664-0

3. Ploussard G, Nicolaiew N, Marchand C, Terry S, Allory Y, Vacherot F, Abbou CC, Salomon L, de la Taille A. Risk of repeat biopsy and prostate cancer detection after an initial extended negative biopsy: longitudinal follow-up from a prospective trial. BJU Int. 2013;111(6):988-96. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11607.x

4. Bass EJ, Pantovic A, Connor MJ, Loeb S, Rastinehad AR, Winkler M, Gabe R, Ahmed HU. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy techniques compared to transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2022;25(2):174-179. https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41391-021-00449-7

5. Loeb S, Bjurlin MA, Nicholson J, Tammela TL, Penson DF, Carter HB, Carroll P, Etzioni R. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014;65(6):1046-55. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.062

6. Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, Catto J, Emberton M, Nam R, Rosario DJ, Scattoni V, Lotan Y. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64(6):876-92. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.049

7. Lam TBL, MacLennan S, Willemse PM, Mason MD, Plass K, Shepherd R, Baanders R, Bangma CH, Bjartell A, Bossi A, Briers E, Briganti A, Buddingh KT, Catto JWF, Colecchia M, Cox BW, Cumberbatch MG, Davies J, Davis NF, De Santis M, Dell'Oglio P, Deschamps A, Donaldson JF, Egawa S, Fankhauser CD, Fanti S, Fossati N, Gandaglia G, Gillessen S, Grivas N, Gross T, Grummet JP, Henry AM, Ingels A, Irani J, Lardas M, Liew M, Lin DW, Moris L, Omar MI, Pang KH, Paterson CC, Renard-Penna R, Ribal MJ, Roobol MJ, Rouprêt M, Rouvière O, Sancho Pardo G, Richenberg J, Schoots IG, Sedelaar JPM, Stricker P, Tilki D, Vahr Lauridsen S, van den Bergh RCN, Van den Broeck T, van der Kwast TH, van der Poel HG, van Leenders GJLH, Varma M, Violette PD, Wallis CJD, Wiegel T, Wilkinson K, Zattoni F, N'Dow JMO, Van Poppel H, Cornford P, Mottet N. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Prostate Cancer Guideline Panel Consensus Statements for Deferred Treatment with Curative Intent for Localised Prostate Cancer from an International Collaborative Study (DETECTIVE Study). Eur Urol. 2019;76(6):790-813. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.020

8. Norris JM, Kinnaird A, Margolis DJ, Padhani AR, Walz J, Kasivisvanathan V. Developments in MRI-targeted prostate biopsy. Curr Opin Urol. 2020;30(1):1-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000683

9. Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Manenti G, Aversa T, Catalano C, Simonetti G. MR imaging-guided prostate biopsy: technical features and preliminary results. Radiol Med. 2015;120(6):571-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11547-014-0490-0

10. Verma S, Choyke PL, Eberhardt SC, Oto A, Tempany CM, Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB. The Current State of MR Imaging-targeted Biopsy Techniques for Detection of Prostate Cancer. Radiology. 2017;285(2):343-356. https://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161684

11. Stabile A, Dell'Oglio P, Gandaglia G, Fossati N, Brembilla G, Cristel G, Dehò F, Scattoni V, Maga T, Losa A, Gaboardi F, Cardone G, Esposito A, De Cobelli F, Del Maschio A, Montorsi F, Briganti A. Not All Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsies Are Equal: The Impact of the Type of Approach and Operator Expertise on the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2018;1(2):120-128. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2018.02.002

12. Elkhoury FF, Felker ER, Kwan L, Sisk AE, Delfin M, Natarajan S, Marks LS. Comparison of Targeted vs Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Men Who Are Biopsy Naive: The Prospective Assessment of Image Registration in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer (PAIREDCAP) Study. JAMA Surg. 2019;154(9):811-818. https://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2019.1734

13. Wegelin O, Exterkate L, van der Leest M, Kummer JA, Vreuls W, de Bruin PC, Bosch JLHR, Barentsz JO, Somford DM, van Melick HHE. The FUTURE Trial: A Multicenter Randomised Controlled Trial on Target Biopsy Techniques Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in Patients with Prior Negative Biopsies. Eur Urol. 2019;75(4):582-590. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.040

14. Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V, Eggener S, Emberton M, Fütterer JJ, Gill IS, Grubb Iii RL, Hadaschik B, Klotz L, Margolis DJ, Marks LS, Melamed J, Oto A, Palmer SL, Pinto P, Puech P, Punwani S, Rosenkrantz AB, Schoots IG, Simon R, Taneja SS, Turkbey B, Ukimura O, van der Meulen J, Villers A, Watanabe Y; 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):544-52. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.030

15. Hsieh PF, Chang TY, Lin WC, Chang H, Chang CH, Huang CP, Yang CR, Chen WC, Chang YH, Wang YD, Huang WC, Wu HC. A comparative study of transperineal software-assisted magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion biopsy and transrectal cognitive fusion biopsy of the prostate. BMC Urol. 2022;22(1):72. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12894-022-01011-w

16. Liang L, Cheng Y, Qi F, Zhang L, Cao D, Cheng G, Hua L. A Comparative Study of Prostate Cancer Detection Rate Between Transperineal COG-TB and Transperineal FUS-TB in Patients with PSA ≤20 ng/mL. J Endourol. 2020;34(10):1008-1014. https://dx.doi.org/10.1089/end.2020.0276

17. Kaufmann S, Russo GI, Bamberg F, Löwe L, Morgia G, Nikolaou K, Stenzl A, Kruck S, Bedke J. Prostate cancer detection in patients with prior negative biopsy undergoing cognitive-, robotic- or in-bore MRI target biopsy. World J Urol. 2018;36(5):761-768. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2189-7

18. Watts KL, Frechette L, Muller B, Ilinksy D, Kovac E, Sankin A, Aboumohamed A. Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing cognitive vs. image-guided fusion prostate biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2020;38(9):734.e19-734.e25. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.03.020

19. Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo G, Pennisi M. Transperineal Versus Transrectal MRI/TRUS Fusion Targeted Biopsy: Detection Rate of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2017;15(1):e33-e36. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2016.07.007

20. Valerio M, McCartan N, Freeman A, Punwani S, Emberton M, Ahmed HU. Visually directed vs. software-based targeted biopsy compared to transperineal template mapping biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(10):424.e9-16. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.06.012

21. Kam J, Yuminaga Y, Kim R, Aluwihare K, Macneil F, Ouyang R, Ruthven S, Louie-Johnsun M. Does magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy improve prostate cancer detection? A comparison of systematic, cognitive fusion and ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy. Prostate Int. 2018;6(3):88-93. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prnil.2017.10.003

22. Oderda M, Faletti R, Battisti G, Dalmasso E, Falcone M, Marra G, Palazzetti A, Zitella A, Bergamasco L, Gandini G, Gontero P. Prostate Cancer Detection Rate with Koelis Fusion Biopsies versus Cognitive Biopsies: A Comparative Study. Urol Int. 2016;97(2):230-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000445524