Investig Clin Urol.  2020 Jan;61(1):28-34. 10.4111/icu.2020.61.1.28.

Comparison of prostate cancer detection rates of various prostate biopsy methods for patients with prostate-specific antigen levels of < 10.0 ng/mL in real-world practice

• Oh KT
• Koo KC
• Chung BH
• Lee KS

• KMID: 2466789
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4111/icu.2020.61.1.28

Abstract

PURPOSE
Several strategies of prostate biopsy (PBx) have been introduced to improve prostate cancer (PCa) detection rates. However, studies comparing cancer detection rates (CDRs) according to biopsy methods in real-world practice are scarce. This study aimed to investigate CDRs according to the biopsy methods for patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) < 10.0 ng/mL.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
From 2006 to 2015, patients who underwent PBx were initially selected. All patients were categorized according to the biopsy methods performed (magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy [MR-TBx], 12+2 hypoechoic lesion target biopsy, saturation biopsy [sPBx], extended biopsy, and 12-core PBx). The CDR of MR-TBx was compared to that of sPBx and other protocols. Volume per core (VPC) was defined as prostate volume divided by the number of biopsy cores. Patients previously diagnosed with PCa were excluded.
RESULTS
Of the 1,598 patients (median PSA, 5.41 ng/mL), 401 (25.1%) were diagnosed with PCa. Among the biopsy methods, MR-TBx has the highest CDR and proportion of Gleason score ≥7 (3+4). Biopsy methods, VPC, age, prostate volume, and PSA were associated with PCa detection. In the sub-analysis for initial biopsy, MR-TBx had no significant difference with sPBx, but had higher CDR than the other biopsy protocols. For repeat biopsy, VPC, rather than the biopsy method, was associated with CDR.
CONCLUSIONS
This study reaffirmed the efficacy of MR-TBx on CDR in real-world practice. In cases with barriers to performing magnetic resonance imaging, VPC might be useful for adjusting the optimal number of biopsy cores in repeat biopsy.

Keyword

Biopsy; Image-guided biopsy; Prostatic neoplasms

MeSH Terms

Biopsy*
Humans
Image-Guided Biopsy
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Methods*
Neoplasm Grading
Passive Cutaneous Anaphylaxis
Prostate*
Prostate-Specific Antigen*
Prostatic Neoplasms*
Prostate-Specific Antigen

Reference

1. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Stamey TA. Ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the palpably abnormal prostate. J Urol. 1989; 142:66–70. PMID: 2659826.

2. Carroll PR, Parsons JK, Andriole G, Bahnson RR, Castle EP, Catalona WJ, et al. NCCN Guidelines insights: prostate cancer early detection, version 2.2016. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016; 14:509–519. PMID: 27160230.

3. Nazir B. Pain during transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy and the role of periprostatic nerve block: what radiologists should know. Korean J Radiol. 2014; 15:543–553. PMID: 25246816.

4. Aigner F, Schäfer G, Steiner E, Jaschke W, Horninger W, Herrmann TR, et al. Value of enhanced transrectal ultrasound targeted biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis: a retrospective data analysis. World J Urol. 2012; 30:341–346. PMID: 22179312.

5. Kretschmer A, Tilki D. Biomarkers in prostate cancer - current clinical utility and future perspectives. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2017; 120:180–193. PMID: 29198331.

6. Carroll PH, Mohler JL. NCCN Guidelines updates: prostate cancer and prostate cancer early detection. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018; 16:620–623. PMID: 29784740.

7. Edge SB, Compton CC. The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010; 17:1471–1474. PMID: 20180029.

8. Lee KS, Koo KC, Chung BH. Quantitation of hypoechoic lesions for the prediction and Gleason grading of prostate cancer: a prospective study. World J Urol. 2018; 36:1059–1065. PMID: 29508049.

9. Jiang J, Colli J, El-Galley R. A simple method for estimating the optimum number of prostate biopsy cores needed to maintain high cancer detection rates while minimizing unnecessary biopsy sampling. J Endourol. 2010; 24:143–147. PMID: 20001330.

10. Basch E, Oliver TK, Vickers A, Thompson I, Kantoff P, Parnes H, et al. Screening for prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen testing: American Society of Clinical Oncology provisional clinical opinion. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30:3020–3025. PMID: 22802323.

11. Avery KN, Metcalfe C, Vedhara K, Lane JA, Davis M, Neal DE, et al. Predictors of attendance for prostate-specific antigen screening tests and prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2012; 62:649–655. PMID: 22244151.

12. Vashi AR, Wojno KJ, Gillespie B, Oesterling JE. A model for the number of cores per prostate biopsy based on patient age and prostate gland volume. J Urol. 1998; 159:920–924. PMID: 9474183.

13. Remzi M, Fong YK, Dobrovits M, Anagnostou T, Seitz C, Waldert M, et al. The Vienna nomogram: validation of a novel biopsy strategy defining the optimal number of cores based on patient age and total prostate volume. J Urol. 2005; 174:1256–1260. author reply 1261. PMID: 16145388.

14. Letran JL, Meyer GE, Loberiza FR, Brawer MK. The effect of prostate volume on the yield of needle biopsy. J Urol. 1998; 160:1718–1721. PMID: 9783939.

15. 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; 389:815–822. PMID: 28110982.

16. Kim EH, Andriole GL. Improved biopsy efficiency with MR/ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016; 108:djw040. PMID: 27130934.

17. Purysko AS, Rosenkrantz AB, Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Macura KJ. PI-RADS version 2: a pictorial update. Radiographics. 2016; 36:1354–1372. PMID: 27471952.

18. Zaytoun OM, Moussa AS, Gao T, Fareed K, Jones JS. Office based transrectal saturation biopsy improves prostate cancer detection compared to extended biopsy in the repeat biopsy population. J Urol. 2011; 186:850–854. PMID: 21788047.

19. Jiang X, Zhu S, Feng G, Zhang Z, Li C, Li H, et al. Is an initial saturation prostate biopsy scheme better than an extended scheme for detection of prostate cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2013; 63:1031–1039. PMID: 23414775.

20. Lee C, Woo HH. Current methods of analgesia for transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy--a systematic review. BJU Int. 2014; 113 Suppl 2:48–56. PMID: 24053451.

21. Benchikh El Fegoun A, El Atat R, Choudat L, El Helou E, Hermieu JF, Dominique S, et al. The learning curve of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies: implications for training programs. Urology. 2013; 81:12–15. PMID: 23273070.

22. Lawrentschuk N, Toi A, Lockwood GA, Evans A, Finelli A, O'Malley M, et al. Operator is an independent predictor of detecting prostate cancer at transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2009; 182:2659–2663. PMID: 19836804.

23. Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, Catto J, Emberton M, Nam R, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013; 64:876–892. PMID: 23787356.