Site Overlay

Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer – Efficacy of MRI / Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsy

By Борис Попщерев

Volume 12, Issue 1

Original Article / Published: December 2024

DOI:

V. Todorova, O. Gatsev, K. Hristov, K. Petkova, M. Mihaylova,I. Saltirov

Clinic of Urology, Department of Urology and Nephrology, Military Medical Academy, Sofia, Bulgaria, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Specialized University Hospital for Active Treatment of Oncology “Prof. Ivan Chernozemski”, Sofia, Bulgaria

Abstract

Introduction: Diagnosis of prostate cancer remains a challenge, requiring methods that balance accuracy and invasiveness. To improve early diagnosis and risk assessment for clinically significant disease, new diagnostic methods have been developed and implemented over time. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become the standard among imaging techniques for diagnosing prostate cancer. The standardized system Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) categorizes lesions suspected of prostate cancer based on MRI results, determining the likelihood of clinically significant disease. MRI/ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy is a promising method for histological diagnosis of prostate cancer, combining images from specialized imaging with those obtained in real-time via ultrasound examination.

Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on the medical data of 380 consecutive patients from January 2020 to July 2023. The patients included in the study had elevated total prostate-specific antigen (tPSA) levels. All underwent MRI of the prostate gland. MRI lesion data were categorized using the PI-RADS v2.1 system. For all patients with lesions rated PI-RADS 3 or higher, MRI/US-guided fusion targeted biopsy of the prostate was performed. The obtained histopathological results were statistically analyzed.

Results: The average age of the patients in the study was 65.7 ± 7 years. tPSA values were 31.36 ± 7.21 ng/ml, and the average prostate volume was 53.6 ± 15.4 cc. Digital rectal examination did not detect suspicious changes in the prostate in 74.6% of patients, while 25.4% showed suspicious changes. 32.4% of the MRIs revealed PI-RADS 3 lesions, 47.7% PI-RADS 4, and 19.9% PI-RADS 5. 56.2% of the MRI-detected lesions were located in the peripheral zone of the prostate, 28.4% in the transitional zone, 9.5% in the fibromuscular zone, and 5.9% were apical. 25.4% of patients had negative histopathological results for carcinoma and were diagnosed with benign prostatic hyperplasia; 49.2% of patients had histopathological results indicating low-grade prostate cancer, and 25.4% had high-grade prostate cancer. For all positive carcinoma results, the Gleason score was determined. 29.1% of the histopathological results were Gleason score 3+3=6, 27.1% were Gleason 7 (13.1% – Gleason 3+4 and 14% – 4+3), 7.1% were Gleason 8, and 8.6% were Gleason 4+5 or 5+4.

Conclusion: The introduction of MRI/US fusion biopsy as a diagnostic method has significantly improved early detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. The results achieved with this method allow for precise staging of the disease and personalization of strategies for subsequent treatment of patients with prostate cancer.

References

  1. Ferlay J, Ervik M, Lam F, Laversanne M, Colombet M, Mery dL, Piñeros M, Znaor A, Soerjomataram I, Bray F (2024). Global Cancer Observatory: Cancer Toay. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. Available from: https://gco. iarc.who.int/today, accessed [15 10 2024].
  2. Fleshner, K., et al. The effect of the USPSTF PSA screening recommendation on prostate cancer incidence patterns in the USA. Nat Rev Urol, 2017. 14: 26. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/27995937
  3. EAU Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Paris 2024. ISBN 978-94-92671-23-3.
  4. Smeenge, M., et al. Role of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) in focal therapy of prostate cancer: report from a Consensus Panel. BJU Int, 2012. 110: 942.
  5. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Stamey TA. Ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the palpably abnormal prostate. J Urol 1989;142:66-7.
  6. Kohaar I., Petrovics G., Srivastava S. A Rich Array of Prostate Cancer Molecular Biomarkers: Opportunities and Challenges. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019;20:1813. doi: 10.3390/ijms20081813.
  7. Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V, Eggener S, Emberton M, Futterer JJ, Gill IS, et al. Standards of reporting for MRI–targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. European Urology 2013;64(4):54452.
  8. Epstein JI, Zelejoberg DD, et al. A Contemporary Prostate Cancer Grading System: A Validated Alternative to the Gleason Score. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):428-435.);(van der Kwast TH, Roobol MJ. Defining and Predicting “Clinically Significant” Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Suppl. 2013;12(2):31-39.
  9. Rouviere O., Puech P., Renard-Penna R., Claudon M., RRoy C., Mege-Lechevallier F., Decaussin-Petrucci M., Dubreuil-Chambardel M., Magaud L., Remontet L., et al. Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): A prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet. Oncol. 2019;20:100– 109. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2.
  10. Ahdoot M, Wilbur AR, Reese SE. MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2020; 382: 917-928.
  11. Drost FH, Nieboer D, Morgan TM, Carroll PR, Roobol MJ. Predicting biopsy outcomes during active surveillance for prostate cancer: external validation of the canary prostate active surveillance study risk calculators in five large active surveillance cohorts. Eur Urol. 2019; 76: 693-702.
  12. Ahmed H.U., El-Shater Bosaily A., Brown L.C., Gabe R., Kaplan R., Parmar M.K., Collaco-Moraes Y., Ward K., Hindley R.G., Freeman A., 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. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1.
  13. Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MG. Magnetic resonance imaging–targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound–guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta– analysis. European Urology 2015;68(3):438–50.
  14. Siddiqui MM, Rais–Bahrami S, Turkbey B. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion–guided biopsy with ultrasound– guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 2015;313(4):390–7.
  15. Monni F, Fontanella P, Grasso A, Wiklund P, Ou YC, Randazzo M, Rocco B, Montanari E, Bianchi G. Magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer detection and management: a systematic review. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2017 Dec;6(6):567-578. doi: 10.23736/S0393-2249.17.02819-3. Epub 2017 May 8. PMID: 28488844.
  16. Drost FH, Osses DF, Nieboer D, Steyerberg EW, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ, Schoots IG. Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Apr 25;4(4):CD012663. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012663.pub2. PMID: 31022301; PMCID: PMC6483565.
  17. Lee AYM, Chen K, Tan YG, Lee HJ, Shutchaidat V, Fook-Chong S, Cheng CWS, Ho HSS, Yuen JSP, Ngo NT, Law YM, Tay KJ. Reducing the number of systematic biopsy cores in the era of MRI targeted biopsy-implications on clinically-significant prostate cancer detection and relevance to focal therapy planning. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2022 Apr;25(4):720- 726. doi: 10.1038/s41391-021-00485-3. Epub 2022 Jan 14. Erratum in: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2022 Apr;25(4):802. doi: 10.1038/s41391-022-00513-w. PMID: 35027690; PMCID: PMC9705237.
  18. Hansen NL, Barrett T, Kesch C, Pepdjonovic L, Bonekamp D, O’Sullivan R, Distler F, Warren A, Samel C, Hadaschik B, Grummet J, Kastner C. Multicentre evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging supported transperineal prostate biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2018 Jul;122(1):40-49. doi: 10.1111/bju.14049. Epub 2017 Nov 15. PMID: 29024425.
  19. Mussi TC, Garcia RG, Queiroz MR, Lemos GC, Baroni RH. Prostate cancer detection using multiparametric 3 – tesla MRI and fusion biopsy: preliminary results. Int Braz J Urol. 2016 SepOct;42(5):897-905. doi: 10.1590/S1677 5538.IBJU.2015.0204. PMID: 27532112; PMCID: PMC5066885.
Volume 11, Issue 1
Article [pdf]

Keywords:

magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, fusion biopsy, clinically significant prostate cancer

How to cite this article:

V. Todorova, O. Gatsev, K. Hristov, K. Petkova, M. Mihaylova,I. Saltirov

Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer – Efficacy of, MRI/Ultrasound Fusion Targeted, Biopsy; Endourology and minimally invasive surgery, 2024; 12(1): 49-54

Corresponding author:

Dr. Viktoria Todorova

Clinic of Urology Department of Urology and Nephrology Military Medical Academy , Sofia 1606 Georgi Sofiyski Blvd. 3
e-mail: v.todorova0803@gmail.com