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
. 2021 Feb 26:11:643051.
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.643051. eCollection 2021.

Is Additional Systematic Biopsy Necessary in All Initial Prostate Biopsy Patients With Abnormal MRI?

Xueqing Cheng  1 , Jinshun Xu  2 , Yuntian Chen  1 , Zhenhua Liu  3 , Guangxi Sun  3 , Ling Yang  1 , Jin Yao  1 , Hao Zeng  3 , Bin Song  1
Affiliations

Is Additional Systematic Biopsy Necessary in All Initial Prostate Biopsy Patients With Abnormal MRI?

Xueqing Cheng et al. Front Oncol. .

Abstract

Purpose: To determine whether additional systematic biopsy is necessary in all biopsy naïve patients with MRI visible lesions by taking PI-RADS score and prostate volume into consideration.

Materials and methods: Patients who underwent combined systematic biopsy (SB) and cognitive MRI-targeted biopsy (TB) in our hospital between May 2018 and June 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. The detection rate of clinical significant prostate cancer (csPCa), biopsy grade group (GG) concordance, and disease upgrading rate on radical prostatectomy were compared between SB and TB and further stratified by PI-RADS v2.0 category and prostate volume.

Results: A total of 234 patients were analyzed in this study. TB alone detected more csPCa and less clinically insignificant prostate cancer (cisPCa) than SB alone in the whole cohort (57.3 vs 53%, P = 0.041; 3.8 vs 7.7%, P = 0.049 respectively). The additional SB indicated only a marginal increase of csPCa detection but a remarkable increase of cisPCa detection compared with targeted biopsy (59.4 vs 57.3%, P = 0.064; 3.8 vs 7.7%, P = 0.012). As stratified by PI-RADS category, the difference of csPCa detection rate between TB and SB was not significant either in PI-RADS 5 subgroup (83.8 vs 76.3%, P = 0.07) or in PI-RADS 3-4 subgroup (43.5 vs 40.9%, P = 1.0). Additional SB decreased the rate of disease upgrading on radical prostatectomy (RP) than TB alone in PI-RADS 3-4 subgroup (14.5 vs 25.5%, P = 0.031) other than PI-RADS 5 subgroup (6 vs 6%, P = 1.0). When stratified by prostate volume (PV), TB alone detected more csPCa than SB in small prostate (PV < 30 ml) group (81.0 vs 71.0%, P = 0.021) but not in large prostate (PV ≥ 30 ml) group (44.0 vs 42.7%, P = 0.754). The additional SB did not significantly decrease the rate of disease upgrading on RP than TB alone in either small or large prostate (6.4 vs 8.5%, P = 1.0; 13.8 vs 22.4%, P = 0.063).

Conclusion: The combination biopsy method was no superior than targeted biopsy alone in PI-RADS 5 or in small volume prostate subgroup.

Keywords: MRI; PI-RADS; prostate biopsy; prostate cancer; targeted biopsy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Comparison of csPCa and cisPCa detection rate between TB+SB, TB alone, and SB alone in the whole cohort.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Comparison of csPCa (GS≥7) and cisPCa (GS6) cancer detection between TB+SB, TB alone, and SB alone stratified by PI-RADS score.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Comparison of csPCa (GS≥7) and cisPCa (GS6) cancer detection between TB+SB, TB alone, and SB alone stratified by prostate volume.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Smeenge M, de la Rosette JJ, Wijkstra H. Current status of transrectal ultrasound techniques in prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol (2012) 22(4):297–302. 10.1097/MOU.0b013e3283548154 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bjurlin MA, Carter HB, Schellhammer P, Cookson MS, Gomella LG, Troyer D, et al. . Optimization of initial prostate biopsy in clinical practice: sampling, labeling and specimen processing. J Urol (2013) 189(6):2039–46. 10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.072 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong H, Stamatakis L, Vourganti S, Nix J, et al. . Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound–Fusion Biopsy Significantly Upgrades Prostate Cancer Versus Systematic 12-core Transrectal Ultrasound Biopsy. Eur Urol (2013) 64(5):713–9. 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.059 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. . Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet (2017) 389(10071):815–22. 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bjurlin MA, Taneja SS. Prediagnostic Risk Assessment with Prostate MRI and MRI-Targeted Biopsy. Urol Clin North Am (2017) 44(4):535–46. 10.1016/j.ucl.2017.07.012 - DOI - PubMed