In men undergoing a first prostate biopsy to rule out clinically significant cancer, should samples be taken exclusively from lesions visible on magnetic resonance imaging, or should systematic sampling also be obtained?
In a paired-cohort trial comparing biopsy methods in 248 men with magnetic resonance imaging–visible lesions, clinically significant prostate cancer was diagnosed in 70%. The targeted biopsy approach was marginally more sensitive than the systematic biopsy approach, but the 2 approaches combined detected 11% to 33% more cancers than either method alone.
In this study, the addition of systematic sampling to targeting of magnetic resonance imaging–visible lesions resulted in a sensitivity for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer beyond that of either method alone.
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guidance improves the accuracy of prostate biopsy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, but the optimal use of such guidance is not yet clear.
To determine the cancer detection rate (CDR) of targeting MRI-visible lesions vs systematic prostate sampling in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in men who were biopsy naive.
Design, Setting, and Participants
This paired cohort trial, known as the Prospective Assessment of Image Registration in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer (PAIREDCAP) study, was conducted in an academic medical center from January 2015 to April 2018. Men undergoing first-time prostate biopsy were enrolled. Paired-cohort participants were a consecutive series of men with MRI-visible lesions (defined by a Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System version 2 score ≥ 3), who each underwent 3 biopsy methods at the same sitting: first, a systematic biopsy; second, an MRI-lesion biopsy targeted by cognitive fusion; and third, an MRI-lesion targeted by software fusion. Another consecutive series of men without MRI-visible lesions underwent systematic biopsies to help determine the false-negative rate of MRI during the trial period.
Main Outcomes and Measures
The primary end point was the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason grade group ≥2) overall and by each biopsy method separately. The secondary end points were the effects of the Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System version 2 grade, prostate-specific antigen density, and prostate volume on the primary end point. Tertiary end points were the false-negative rate of MRI and concordance of biopsy-method results by location of detected cancers within the prostate.
A total of 300 men participated; 248 had MRI-visible lesions (mean [SD] age, 65.5 [7.7] years; 197 were white [79.4%]), and 52 were control participants (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [5.9] years; 39 were white [75%]). The overall CDR was 70% in the paired cohort group, achieved by combining systematic and targeted biopsy results. The CDR by systematic sampling was 15% in the group without MRI-visible lesions. In the paired-cohort group, CDRs varied from 47% (116 of 248 men) when using cognitive fusion biopsy alone, to approximately 60% when using systematic biopsy (149 of 248 men) or either fusion method alone (154 of 248 men), to 70% (174 of 248 men) when combining systematic and targeted biopsy. Discordance of tumor locations suggests that the different biopsy methods detect different tumors. Thus, combining targeting and systematic sampling provide greatest sensitivity for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. For all biopsy methods, the Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System version 2 grade and prostate-specific antigen density were directly associated with CDRs, and prostate volume was inversely associated.
Conclusions and Relevance
An MRI-visible lesion in men undergoing first-time prostate biopsy identifies those with a heightened risk of clinically significant prostate cancer. Combining targeted and systematic biopsy offers the best chances of detecting the cancer.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Elkhoury FF, Felker ER, Kwan L, et al. Comparison of Targeted vs Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Men Who Are Biopsy Naive: The Prospective Assessment of Image Registration in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer (PAIREDCAP) Study. JAMA Surg. Published online June 12, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2019.1734
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: