Preoperative Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Predicts Biochemical Recurrence in Prostate Cancer after Radical Prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the utility of preoperative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) in predicting biochemical recurrence (BCR) following radical prostatectomy (RP). MATERIALS/METHODS: From March 2007 to January 2015, 421 consecutive patients with prostate cancer (PCa) underwent preoperative MP-MRI and RP. BCR-free survival rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify clinical and imaging variables predictive of BCR. Logistic regression was performed to generate a nomogram to predict three-year BCR probability. RESULTS: Of the total cohort, 370 patients met inclusion criteria with 39 (10.5%) patients experiencing BCR. On multivariate analysis, preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (p = 0.01), biopsy Gleason score (p = 0.0008), MP-MRI suspicion score (p = 0.03), and extracapsular extension on MP-MRI (p = 0.03) were significantly associated with time to BCR. A nomogram integrating these factors to predict BCR at three years after RP demonstrated a c-index of 0.84, outperforming the predictive value of Gleason score and PSA alone (c-index 0.74, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The addition of MP-MRI to standard clinical factors significantly improves prediction of BCR in a post-prostatectomy PCa cohort. This could serve as a valuable tool to support clinical decision-making in patients with moderate and high-risk cancers.

Prostate Cancer Diagnosis on Repeat Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy of Benign Lesions: Recommendations for Repeat Sampling.

PURPOSE: Urologists face a dilemma when a lesion identified on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging is benign on image guided fusion biopsy. We investigated the detection rate of prostate cancer on repeat fusion biopsy in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging lesions initially found to be pathologically benign on fusion biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of all patients from 2007 to 2014 who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and image guided fusion biopsy. We identified men who underwent rebiopsy of the same discrete lesion after initial fusion biopsy results were benign. Data were documented on a per lesion basis. We manually reviewed UroNav system (Invivo, Gainesville, Florida) needle tracking to verify accurate image registration. Multivariate analysis was used to identify clinical and imaging factors predictive of prostate cancer detection at repeat fusion biopsy. RESULTS: A total of 131 unique lesions were rebiopsied in 90 patients. Of these 131 resampled lesions 21 (16%) showed prostate cancer, which in 13 (61.9%) was Gleason 3 + 3. On multivariate analysis only lesion growth on repeat multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was significantly associated with prostate cancer detection at repeat biopsy (HR 3.274, 95% CI 1.205-8.896, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Pathologically benign multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging lesions on initial image guided fusion biopsy are rarely found to harbor clinically significant prostate cancer on repeat biopsy. When prostate cancer was identified, most disease was low risk. An increase in lesion diameter was an independent predictor of prostate cancer detection. While these data are retrospective, they may provide some confidence in the reliability of negative initial image guided fusion biopsies despite a positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging finding.

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

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.