Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2016 Jun;195(6):1737-43.
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.102. Epub 2016 Jan 23.

Reproducibility of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Fusion Guided Prostate Biopsy: Multi-Institutional External Validation by a Propensity Score Matched Cohort

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Reproducibility of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Fusion Guided Prostate Biopsy: Multi-Institutional External Validation by a Propensity Score Matched Cohort

Ardeshir R Rastinehad et al. J Urol. 2016 Jun.

Abstract

Purpose: As the adoption of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided biopsy expands, the reproducibility of outcomes at expert centers becomes essential. We sought to validate the comprehensive NCI (National Cancer Institute) experience with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and fusion guided biopsy in an external, independent, matched cohort of patients.

Materials and methods: We compared 620 patients enrolled in a prospective trial comparing systematic biopsy to fusion guided biopsy at NCI to 310 who underwent a similar procedure at Long Island Jewish Medical Center. The propensity score, defined as the probability of being treated outside NCI, was calculated using the estimated logistic regression model. Patients from the hospital were matched 1:1 for age, prostate specific antigen, magnetic resonance imaging suspicion score and prior negative biopsies. Clinically significant disease was defined as Gleason 3 + 4 or greater.

Results: Before matching we found differences between the cohorts in age, magnetic resonance imaging suspicion score (each p <0.001), the number of patients with prior negative biopsies (p = 0.01), and the overall cancer detection rate and the cancer detection rate by fusion guided biopsy (each p <0.001). No difference was found in the rates of upgrading by fusion guided biopsy (p = 0.28) or upgrading to clinically significant disease (p = 0.95). A statistically significant difference remained in the overall cancer detection rate and the rate by fusion guided biopsy after matching. On subgroup analysis we found a difference in the overall cancer detection rate and the rate by fusion guided biopsy (p <0.001 and 0.003) in patients with prior negative systematic biopsy but no difference in the 2 rates (p = 0.39 and 0.51, respectively) in biopsy naïve patients.

Conclusions: Improved detection of clinically significant cancer by magnetic resonance imaging and fusion guided biopsy is reproducible by an experienced multidisciplinary team consisting of dedicated radiologists and urologists.

Keywords: adenocarcinoma; biopsy; magnetic resonance imaging; prostate; ultrasound, high-intensity focused, transrectal.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

  • Reply by Authors.
    [No authors listed] [No authors listed] J Urol. 2016 Jun;195(6):1743. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.125. Epub 2016 Mar 19. J Urol. 2016. PMID: 27001635 No abstract available.
  • Editorial Comment.
    Walton-Diaz A. Walton-Diaz A. J Urol. 2016 Jun;195(6):1742-3. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.124. Epub 2016 Mar 19. J Urol. 2016. PMID: 27001636 No abstract available.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. American Cancer Society®: Learn About Cancer: Prostate Cancer–Detailed Guide 2014. Available at http://www.cancer.org/cancer/prostatecancer/detailedguide/prostate-cance.... Accessed December 22, 2015.
    1. Moyer VA and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2012; 157: 120. - PubMed
    1. Cohen MS, Hanley RS, Kurteva T et al.: Comparing the Gleason prostate biopsy and Gleason prostatectomy grading system: the Lahey Clinic Medical Center experience and an international meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2008; 54: 371. - PubMed
    1. Eggener SE, Badani K, Barocas DA et al.: Gleason 6 prostate cancer: translating biology into population health. J Urol 2015; 194: 626. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kvale R, Moller B, Wahlqvist R et al.: Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population-based study. BJU Int 2009; 103: 1647. - PubMed

Publication types