Comparing significant prostate cancer detection rates after the introduction of pre-biopsy MRI: turning PROMIS into action

Abstract

Introduction:

Basingstoke was a participating centre in the MRC funded PROMIS trial between 2013 and 2015 recruiting 130 patients. In response to a perceived change in prostate biopsy histological grading following the introduction of pre-biopsy magnetic resonance imaging at our centre, we decided to undertake a retrospective analysis of prostate histology before and after participation in the study.

Methods:

We identified 206 patients in both 2012 and 2016 who had undergone prostate biopsy. We reviewed the type of biopsy performed (transrectal or transperineal), the number of cores sampled, the number of positive cores and the cancer grade. The proportion of men who had pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was also recorded.

Results:

Although the total numbers undergoing biopsy were equivalent in 2012 and 2016, 37% of all patients undergoing biopsy underwent a transperineal template biopsy in 2012, increasing to 54% in 2016. The overall percentage of positive biopsy results (Gleason score ⩾3+3) increased from 70% to 83.0% (χ²=9.83, P=0.002). While the number of grade group 1 cancers significantly decreased from 63.9% (2012) to 22% (2016), there was a corresponding increase in the number of grade group 3 or higher cancers detected from 11% to 51%. In 2012, 33% of patients had multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging prior to biopsy compared with 90% in 2016. The pre-biopsy magnetic resonance imaging improved the cancer detection rates for both methods of biopsy sampling.

Conclusion:

Our study has confirmed that the introduction of pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging can improve diagnostic accuracy and reduce the number of insignificant cancers detected. This overall upgrading of the biopsied population, and the resulting shift towards detecting an increased number of significant cancers, is likely to have a positive impact on treatment allocation and longer-term outcomes for our patients. This effect should be reproducible in other centres.

Level of evidence:

Not applicable for this multicentre audit.

Keywords

Prostate cancer oncology (prostate)radiology histopathology MRI

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ahmed

El-Shater Bosaily

Brown

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.

Kasivisvanathan

Rannikko

Borghi

et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 1767–1777.

Thompson

Moses

Shnier

et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging guided diagnostic biopsy detects significant prostate cancer and could reduce unnecessary biopsies and over detection: a prospective study. J Urol 2014; 192: 67–74.

Futterer

Briganti

De Visschere

et al. Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2015; 68: 1045–1053.

de Rooij

Hamoen

Futterer

et al. Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 202: 343–351.

Ahmed

Carter

et al. Characterizing clinically significant prostate cancer using template prostate mapping biopsy. J Urol 2011; 186: 458–464.

Wegelin

van Melick

HHE

Hooft

et al. Comparing three different techniques for magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsies: a systematic review of in-bore versus magnetic resonance imaging–transrectal ultrasound fusion versus cognitive registration. Is there a preferred technique? Eur Urol 2017; 71: 517–531.

Moldovan

Van den Broeck

Sylvester

et al. What is the negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in excluding prostate cancer at biopsy? A systematic review and meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol 2017; 72: 250–266.

Padhani

Weinreb

Rosenkrantsz

et al. Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Steering Committee: PI-RADS v2 status update and future directions. Eur Urol 2018; 75: 385–396.

10.

Dickinson

Ahmed

Allen

et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 477–494.

11.

Harada

Abe

Kato

et al. Five-point Likert scaling on MRI predicts clinically significant prostate carcinoma. BMC Urol 2015; 15: 91.

12.

McGlynn

Johnston

Green

A nurse-led multidisciplinary team approach in urology–oncology: addressing the new cancer strategy. J Clin Urol 2017; 10: 449–456.

13.

Lamb

Jalil

Sevdalis

et al. Strategies to improve the efficiency and utility of multidisciplinary team meetings in urology cancer care: a survey study. BMC Health Serv Res 2014; 14: 377.

14.

Eccles

Grimshaw

Walker

et al. Changing the behavior of healthcare professionals: the use of theory in promoting the uptake of research findings. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58: 107–112.

15.

Lamb

Brown

Nagpal

et al. Quality of care management decisions by multidisciplinary cancer teams: a systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol 2011; 18: 2116–2125.

16.

Lane

Donovan

Davis

et al. Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy, or radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer: study design and diagnostic and baseline results of the ProtecT randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 1109–1118.

17.

Leslie

Davies

Elliott

et al. The PART trial – a phase III study comparing pertial prostate ablation versus radical prostatectomy in intermediate risk prostate cancer – early data from the feasibility study. J Urol 2017; 197: e1118–e1119.