Multicenter Randomized Trial Assessing MRI and Image-guided Biopsy for Suspected Prostate Cancer: The MULTIPROS Study.

Background The optimal diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer (PCa) is evolving, requiring further evaluation in a randomized controlled trial. Purpose To assess the diagnostic accuracy of prebiopsy multiparametric MRI in the identification of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) using radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens as the reference standard, and to test the diagnostic accuracy of combined US and MRI fusion-targeted biopsy with systematic biopsies. Materials and Methods In a prospective randomized controlled trial including university hospitals, men with suspected PCa were recruited between January 2015 and August 2020 to assess the diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI before biopsy in detection of csPCa at biopsy and RP histopathologic structure (primary outcome). Men with lesions suspicious for cancer (Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System [PI-RADS] ≥3) at multiparametric MRI were first randomized to either systematic random prostate biopsies alone (control group) or US and MRI fusion-targeted biopsies with systematic random prostate biopsies (intervention group) at a one-to-one ratio to compare the diagnostic accuracy of systematic random versus combined fusion with systematic random biopsies (secondary outcome). A subset of recruited participants (n = 89) underwent RP and histologic sectioning. Results There were 582 participants who were eligible to undergo multiparametric MRI (mean age, 65 years ± 6 [SD]). In total, 413 had a PI-RADS score of at least 3 and were randomized into either the intervention group (207 of 413; 50.1%) or control group (206 of 413; 49.9%). The csPCa detection rate in the intervention group was higher, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.79 (95% CI: 1.14, 2.79; P = .01). A subgroup of 89 men underwent RP (21.5%; 89 of 413). Multiparametric MRI helped correctly identify 131 of 182 csPCa foci in 89 men (sensitivity, 72%; 95% CI: 65, 78). The specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 71% (91 of 128), 78% (131 of 168), and 64% (91 of 142), respectively. Conclusion Prebiopsy multiparametric MRI was accurate in the depiction of clinically significant PCa. Combining US and MRI fusion-targeted biopsies with systematic biopsies helped detect more clinically significant lesions than did systematic biopsies alone. Clinical trial registration no. NCT02745496 © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article.

A multicentre parallel-group randomised trial assessing multiparametric MRI characterisation and image-guided biopsy of prostate in men suspected of having prostate cancer: MULTIPROS study protocol.

BACKGROUND: There is growing evidence suggesting that multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is a marker for prostate cancer (PCa) aggressiveness and could be used to plan treatment. Improving early detection of clinically significant PCa with pre-biopsy mpMRI would very likely have advantages including optimising the diagnosis and treatment of diseases and diminishing patient anxiety. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This is a prospective multicentre study of pre-biopsy mpMRI diagnostic test accuracy with subgroup randomisation at a 1:1 ratio with respect to transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy or TRUS-only biopsy. It is designed as a single-gate study with a single set of inclusion criteria. The total duration of the recruitment phase was 48 months; however, this has now been extended to 66 months. A sample size of 600 participants is required. DISCUSSION: The primary objective is to determine whether mpMRI can improve PCa detection and characterisation. The key secondary objective is to determine whether MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy can reduce the number of false-negative biopsies. Ethical approval was obtained from the East of Scotland Research Ethics Committee 1 (14/ES/1070) on 20 November 2014. The results of this study will be used for publication and presentation in national and international journals and at scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02745496. Retrospectively registered on 20 April 2016.

Surveillance mammography for detecting ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence and metachronous contralateral breast cancer: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of surveillance mammography for detecting ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence and metachronous contralateral breast cancer in women previously treated for primary breast cancer. METHODS: A systematic review of surveillance mammography compared with ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), specialist-led clinical examination or unstructured primary care follow-up, using histopathological assessment for test positives and follow-up for test negatives as the reference standard. RESULTS: Nine studies met our inclusion criteria. Variations in study comparisons precluded meta-analysis. For routine ipsilateral breast tumour detection, surveillance mammography sensitivity ranged from 64-67% and specificity ranged from 85-97%. For MRI, sensitivity ranged from 86-100% and specificity was 93%. For non-routine ipsilateral breast tumour detection, sensitivity and specificity for surveillance mammography ranged from 50-83% and 57-75% and for MRI 93-100% and 88-96%. For routine metachronous contralateral breast cancer detection, one study reported sensitivity of 67% and specificity of 50% for both surveillance mammography and MRI. CONCLUSION: Although mammography is associated with high sensitivity and specificity, MRI is the most accurate test for detecting ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence and metachronous contralateral breast cancer in women previously treated for primary breast cancer. Results should be interpreted with caution because of the limited evidence base. Key Points • Surveillance mammography is associated with high sensitivity and specificity • Findings suggest that MRI is the most accurate test for detecting further breast cancer • Robust conclusions cannot be made due to the limited evidence base • Further research comparing surveillance mammography and other diagnostic tests is required.