Review article: MRI-targeted biopsies for prostate cancer diagnosis and management.

PURPOSE: Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy has been the traditional biopsy route in the detection of prostate cancer. However, due to concern regarding overdetection of low-risk cancer and missed clinically significant cancers as well as risk of sepsis, alternative approaches have been explored. Transperineal template biopsy-sampling the gland every 5 m to 10 mm-reduces error by sampling the whole prostate but increases risk of detecting clinically insignificant cancers as well as conferring risks of side effects such as urinary retention and bleeding. METHODS: There are various targeted biopsy techniques, each with different cancer detection rates, costs and learning curves. Current research focuses on refining biopsy methodology to maximize detection of significant cancers, whilst minimising invasiveness and complications. In this article, the up-to-date research data about MRI-targeted prostate biopsy were reviewed to show its utilization in prostate cancer management and diagnosis. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Prostate multiparametric MRI has become an effective tool in the detection of significant cancers and an essential component of the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway incorporating MRI-guided biopsy decisions.

A Multicenter Study of the Clinical Utility of Nontargeted Systematic Transperineal Prostate Biopsies in Patients Undergoing Pre-Biopsy Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

PURPOSE: The added value of nontargeted systematic prostate biopsies when performed alongside magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsies in men referred with a suspicion of prostate cancer is unclear. We aimed to determine the clinical utility of transperineal nontargeted systematic prostate biopsies, when performed alongside targeted systematic prostate biopsies, using pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients referred with a suspicion of prostate cancer (April 2017 to October 2019) underwent pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. A transperineal biopsy was advised if multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging PI-RADS® (v.2.0) score was 4 or 5, and score 3 required a prostate specific antigen density 0.12 ng/ml or greater. Primary threshold for clinically significant prostate cancer was defined as any Gleason 3+4 or greater. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified pre-biopsy predictors of clinically significant prostate cancer in nontargeted systematic prostate biopsies, regardless of targeted pathology (p <0.05, R, version 3.5.1). RESULTS: A total of 1,719 men underwent a pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, with 679 (39.5%) proceeding to combined targeted systematic prostate biopsies and nontargeted systematic prostate biopsies. In these men clinically significant prostate cancer was detected in 333 (49%) and 139 (20.5%) with targeted systematic prostate biopsies and nontargeted systematic prostate biopsies, respectively. In those men with clinically significant prostate cancer in targeted systematic prostate biopsies, clinically significant prostate cancer was also present in nontargeted systematic prostate biopsies in 117 (17.2%); Gleason 3+3 was present in 50 (7.4%). In 287 men without any cancer in the targeted systematic prostate biopsies, 13 (1.9%) had clinically significant prostate cancer in nontargeted systematic prostate biopsies. In addition 18/679 (2.7%) had Gleason 3+3 disease and no Gleason greater than 4+3 was detected. Predictors associated with clinically significant prostate cancer in nontargeted systematic prostate biopsies were prostate specific antigen 5 ng/ml or greater (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.13-3.73, p=0.02), PI-RADS score 5 (OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.51-3.38, p <0.001) and prostate volume less than 50 cc (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.57-3.87, p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in exclusively nontargeted transperineal systematic biopsies in a pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging pathway was low (1.9%).

Evaluación de la biopsia de fusión elástica vs. biopsia sistemática para la detección del cáncer de próstata: resultados de un estudio multicéntrico en 1.119 pacientes / Elastic fusion biopsy versus systematic biopsy for prostate cancer detection: Results of a multicentric study on 1.119 patients

Objetivos: Evaluar la precisión de las biopsias guiada y sistemática para la detección del cáncer de próstata (CP) y CP clínicamente significativo (CPCS) en la práctica diaria, analizando el requerimiento de biopsias sistemáticas adicionales en el momento de la biopsia guiada. Pacientes y métodos: De nuestra base de datos multicéntrica que incluye 2.115 pacientes sometidos a biopsia de fusión con el sistema Koelis(TM) entre 2010 y 2017, seleccionamos 1.119 pacientes que recibieron biopsias guiadas (una mediana de 3 por cada lesión), con posterior muestreo sistemático (12 a 14 núcleos). Se evaluó la tasa de detección de cáncer (TDC) global y clínicamente significativa de las biopsias de fusión de Koelis(TM), comparando la biopsia guiada con la sistemática. Como objetivo secundario, está la identificación de los predictores de detección de CP. Resultados: La TDC de la biopsia guiada fue del 48% para todos los tipos de cáncer y del 33% para el CPCS. El muestreo de próstata sistemático adicional mejoró la TDC global en un 15% y en un 12% para CPCS. Se detectó CP en el 35, 69 y 92% de los pacientes con lesiones calificadas como PI-RADS 3, 4 y 5, respectivamente. Una puntuación elevada de PI-RADS y un examen rectal digital positivo fueron factores predictores de CP, y la condición «biopsia naïve» se asoció con CPCS. Conclusión: En la práctica diaria, la biopsia guiada con Koelis(TM) logra una buena TDC para todos los CP y CPCS, y mejora significativamente con el muestreo sistemático posterior de la próstata. Los excelentes resultados de la biopsia por fusión se confirman también en pacientes naïve. La puntuación PI-RADS elevada y el examen rectal digital positivo están altamente asociados con la presencia de CP

Objectives: To assess the accuracy of targeted and systematic biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) in the everyday practice, evaluating the need for additional systematic biopsies at the time of targeted biopsy. Patients and methods: From our multicentric database gathering data on 2,115 patients who underwent fusion biopsy with Koelis(TM) system between 2010 and 2017, we selected 1,119 patients who received targeted biopsies (a median of 3 for each target), followed by systematic sampling of the prostate (12 to 14 cores). Overall and clinically significant cancer detection rate (CDR) of Koelis(TM) fusion biopsies were assessed, comparing target and systematic biopsies. Secondary endpoint was the identification of predictors of PCa detection. Results: The CDR of targeted biopsies only was 48% for all cancers and 33% for csPCa. The performance of additional, systematic prostate sampling improved the CDR of 15% for all cancers and of 12% for csPCa. PCa was detected in 35%, 69%, and 92% of patients with lesions scored as PI-RADS 3, 4 and 5, respectively. Elevated PI-RADS score and positive digital rectal examination were predictors of PCa, whereas biopsy-naïve status was associated with csPCa. Conclusion: In the everyday practice target biopsy with Koelis(TM) achieves a good CDR for all PCa and csPCa, which is significantly improved by subsequent systematic sampling of the prostate. The outstanding outcomes of fusion biopsy are confirmed also in biopsy-naïve patients. Elevated PI-RADS score and positive digital rectal examination are strongly associated with presence of PCa

Elastic fusion biopsy versus systematic biopsy for prostate cancer detection: Results of a multicentric study on 1,119 patients. / Evaluación de la biopsia de fusión elástica vs. biopsia sistemática para la detección del cáncer de próstata: resultados de un estudio multicéntrico en 1.119 pacientes.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy of targeted and systematic biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) in the everyday practice, evaluating the need for additional systematic biopsies at the time of targeted biopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From our multicentric database gathering data on 2,115 patients who underwent fusion biopsy with Koelis™ system between 2010 and 2017, we selected 1,119 patients who received targeted biopsies (a median of 3 for each target), followed by systematic sampling of the prostate (12 to 14 cores). Overall and clinically significant cancer detection rate (CDR) of Koelis™ fusion biopsies were assessed, comparing target and systematic biopsies. Secondary endpoint was the identification of predictors of PCa detection. RESULTS: The CDR of targeted biopsies only was 48% for all cancers and 33% for csPCa. The performance of additional, systematic prostate sampling improved the CDR of 15% for all cancers and of 12% for csPCa. PCa was detected in 35%, 69%, and 92% of patients with lesions scored as PI-RADS 3, 4 and 5, respectively. Elevated PI-RADS score and positive digital rectal examination were predictors of PCa, whereas biopsy-naïve status was associated with csPCa. CONCLUSION: In the everyday practice target biopsy with Koelis™ achieves a good CDR for all PCa and csPCa, which is significantly improved by subsequent systematic sampling of the prostate. The outstanding outcomes of fusion biopsy are confirmed also in biopsy-naïve patients. Elevated PI-RADS score and positive digital rectal examination are strongly associated with presence of PCa.

A multicentric study on accurate grading of prostate cancer with systematic and MRI/US fusion targeted biopsies: comparison with final histopathology after radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy in histologic grading of MRI/US image fusion biopsy by comparing histopathology between systematic biopsies (SB), targeted biopsies (TB) and the combination of both (SB + TB) with the final histopathologic outcomes of radical prostatectomy specimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective, multicentric study of 443 patients who underwent SB and TB using MRI/US fusion technique (Urostation® and Trinity®) prior to radical prostatectomy between 2010 and 2017. Cochran's Q test and McNemar test were conducted as a post hoc test. Uni-multivariable analyses were performed on several clinic-pathological variables to analyze factors predicting histopathological concordance for targeted biopsies. RESULTS: Concordance in ISUP (International Society of Urological Pathology) grade between SB, TB and SB + TB with final histopathology was 49.4%, 51.2%, and 63.2% for overall prostate cancer and 41.2%, 48.3%, and 56.7% for significant prostate cancer (ISUP grade ≥ 2), respectively. Significant difference in terms of concordance, downgrading and upgrading was found between SB and TB (ISUP grade ≥ 2 only), SB and SB + TB, TB and SB + TB (overall ISUP grade and ISUP grade ≥ 2) (p < 0.001). Total number of cores and previous biopsies were significant independent predictive factors for concordance with TB technique. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study, combination of SB and TB significantly increased concordance with final histopathology despite a limited additional number of cores needed.

A prospective clinical, cost and environmental analysis of a clinician-led virtual urology clinic.

INTRODUCTION: A virtual clinic is a form of telemedicine where contact between clinical teams and patients occur without face-to-face consultation. Our study aims to quantify the clinical, financial and environmental benefits of our virtual urology clinic. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We collected data prospectively from our weekly follow-up virtual clinic over a continuous four-month period between July and September 2017. RESULTS: In total, we reviewed 409 patients. Following virtual clinic consultation, 68.5% of our patients were discharged from further follow-up. The majority of our patients (male 57.7%, female 55.5%) were of working age. The satisfaction scores were high, at 90.1%, and there were no reported adverse events as a result of using the virtual clinic. Our calculated cost savings were £18,744, with a predicted 12-month cost saving of £56,232. The creation of additional face-to-face clinic capacity has created an estimated 12-month increase in tariff generation for our unit of £72,072. In total, 4623 travel miles were avoided by patients using the virtual clinic, with an estimated avoided carbon footprint of 0.35-1.45 metric tonnes of CO2e, depending on mode of transport. Our predicted 12-month avoided carbon footprint is 1.04-4.04 metric tonnes of CO2e. CONCLUSIONS: Our virtual clinic model has demonstrated a trifecta of positive outcomes, namely, clinical, financial and environmental benefits. The environmental importance and benefits of a virtual clinic should be promoted as a social enterprise value when engaging stakeholders in setting up such a urological service. We propose the adoption of our virtual clinic model in those urological units considering this method of telemedicine.