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
. 2022 Jan 1;128(1):75-84.
doi: 10.1002/cncr.33875. Epub 2021 Aug 24.

Risk of prostate cancer for men with prior negative biopsies undergoing magnetic resonance imaging compared with biopsy-naive men: A prospective evaluation of the PLUM cohort

Hiten D Patel  1 , Elizabeth L Koehne  1 , Steven M Shea  2 , Yasin Bhanji  3 , Marielia Gerena  2 , Alex Gorbonos  1 , Marcus L Quek  1 , Robert C Flanigan  1 , Ari Goldberg  2 , Gopal N Gupta  1
Affiliations
Free article

Risk of prostate cancer for men with prior negative biopsies undergoing magnetic resonance imaging compared with biopsy-naive men: A prospective evaluation of the PLUM cohort

Hiten D Patel et al. Cancer. .
Free article

Abstract

Background: Men with prior negative prostate biopsies have a lower risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer in comparison with biopsy-naive men. However, the relative clinical utility of identified lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is uncertain between the 2 settings.

Methods: Patients from the Prospective Loyola University mpMRI (PLUM) Prostate Biopsy Cohort (January 2015 to June 2020) were examined. The detection of any prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4) was stratified by Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores in the prior negative and biopsy-naive settings. Multivariable logistic regression models (PLUM models) assessed predictors, and decision curve analyses were used to estimate the clinical utility of PI-RADS cutoffs relative to the models.

Results: Nine hundred men (420 prior negative patients and 480 biopsy-naive patients) were included. Prior negative patients had lower risks of any prostate cancer (27.9% vs 54.4%) and clinically significant prostate cancer (20.0% vs 38.3%) in comparison with biopsy-naive patients, and this persisted when they were stratified by PI-RADS (eg, PI-RADS 3: 13.6% vs 27.4% [any prostate cancer] and 5.2% vs 15.4% [clinically significant prostate cancer]). The rate of detection of clinically significant prostate cancer was 5.3% among men with prior negative biopsy and PI-RADS ≤ 3. Family history and Asian ancestry were significant predictors among biopsy-naive patients. PLUM models demonstrated a greater net benefit and reduction in biopsies (45.8%) without missing clinically significant cancer in comparison with PI-RADS cutoffs (PI-RADS 4: 34.0%).

Conclusions: Patients with prior negative biopsies had lower prostate cancer detection by PI-RADS score category in comparison with biopsy-naive men. Decision curve analyses suggested that many biopsies could be avoided by the use of the PLUM models or a PI-RADS 4 cutoff without any clinically significant cancer being missed.

Lay summary: Men with a prior negative prostate biopsy had a lower risk of harboring prostate cancer in comparison with those who never had a biopsy. This was true even when patients in each group had similar multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) findings in terms of Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS)-graded lesions. Decision curve analyses showed that many biopsies could be avoided by the use of the Prospective Loyola University mpMRI prediction models or a PI-RADS 4 cutoff for patients with prior negative biopsies.

Keywords: diagnostic studies; magnetic resonance imaging; prostate biopsy; prostate cancer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Kim SP, Karnes RJ, Mwangi R, et al. Contemporary trends in magnetic resonance imaging at the time of prostate biopsy: results from a large private insurance database. Eur Urol Focus. 2021;7:86-94.
    1. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69:16-40.
    1. Ankerst DP, Straubinger J, Selig K, et al. A contemporary prostate biopsy risk calculator based on multiple heterogeneous cohorts. Eur Urol. 2018;74:197-203.
    1. Hansen NL, Barrett T, Koo B, et al. The influence of prostate-specific antigen density on positive and negative predictive values of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect Gleason score 7-10 prostate cancer in a repeat biopsy setting. BJU Int. 2017;119:724-730.
    1. Su ZT, Patel HD, Epstein JI, Pavlovich CP, Allaf ME. Downgrading of grade group 2 intermediate-risk prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: comparison of outcomes and predictors to identify potential candidates for active surveillance. Cancer. 2020;126:1632-1639.

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

Grants and funding