Predictive clinical features for negative histopathology of MRI/Ultrasound-fusion-guided prostate biopsy in patients with high likelihood of cancer at prostate MRI: Analysis from a urologic outpatient clinic 1

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical features associated with benign histopathology of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) category 4 and 5 lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Between March 2015 and November 2020, 1161 patients underwent mpMRI/Ultrasound-fusion-guided prostate biopsy (FBx) and concurrent 12-core systematic prostate biopsy (SBx) at the Department of Urology of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Germany. 848/ 1161 (73%) patients presented with either PI-RADS 4 or 5 index lesion and were retrospectively evaluated. Multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate clinical parameters associated with a negative outcome of PI-RADS 4 or 5 category lesions after FBx. Area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve (AUC) was conducted using ROC-analysis.

RESULTS:

676/848 (79.7%) patients with either PI-RADS 4 or 5 index lesion were diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) by FBx and 172/848 (20.3%) patients had a negative biopsy (including the concurrent systematic prostate biopsy), respectively. Prostate volume (P-Vol) (OR 0.99, 95% CI = 0.98–1.00, p = 0.038), pre-biopsy-status (OR 0.48, 95% CI = 0.29–0.79, p = 0.004) and localization of the lesion in the transitional zone (OR 0.28, 95% CI = 0.13–0.60, p = 0.001) were independent risk factors for a negative outcome of FBx. Age (OR 1.09, 95% CI = 1.05–1.13, p < 0.001) and PSA density (PSAD) (OR 75.92, 95% CI = 1.03–5584.61, p = 0.048) increased the risk for PCa diagnosis after FBx. The multivariate logistic regression model combining all clinical characteristics achieved an AUC of 0.802 (95% CI = 0.765–0.835; p < 0.001) with a sensitivity and specificity of 66% and 85%.

CONCLUSION:

Lesions with high or highly likelihood of PCa on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) but subsequent negative prostate biopsy occur in a small amount of patients. Localization of the lesion in the transitional zone, prostate volume and prebiopsy were shown to be predictors for benign histopathology of category 4 or 5 lesions on mpMRI. Integration of these features into daily clinical routine could be used for risk-stratification of these patients after negative biopsy of PI-RADS 4 or 5 index lesions.

Keywords

Prostate cancer multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging PI-RADS lesions with high or very high likelihood of clinically significant prostate cancer risk stratification targeted biopsies

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ahmed

, et al. , Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet (London, England). 2017;389(10071):815–22.

Kasivisvanathan

, et al. , MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2018;378(19):1767–77.

Walker

, et al. , Prospective Evaluation of PI-RADS Version 2.1 for Prostate Cancer Detection. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020:1–6.

Turkbey

, et al. , Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1:2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur Urol. 2019;76(3):340–51.

Weinreb

. Organized Chaos: Does PI-RADS Version 2 Work in the Transition Zone? Radiology. 2018;288(2):492–4.

Mottet

, et al. , EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2020.

Venderink

, et al. , Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and follow-up to avoid prostate biopsy in 4259 men. BJU Int. 2019;124(5):775–84.

van der Leest

, et al. , Head-to-head Comparison of Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Prostate Biopsy Versus Multiparametric Prostate Resonance Imaging with Subsequent Magnetic Resonance-guided Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Men with Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen: A Large Prospective Multicenter Clinical Study. European Urology. 2019;75(4):570–78.

Glazer

, et al. , Interreader Agreement of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 Using an In-Bore MRI-Guided Prostate Biopsy Cohort: A Single Institution’s Initial Experience. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2017;209(3):W145–W151.

10.

Rosenkrantz

, et al. , Interobserver Reproducibility of the PI-RADS Version 2 Lexicon: A Multicenter Study of Six Experienced Prostate Radiologists. Radiology. 2016;280(3):793–804.

11.

Mussi

, et al. , Interobserver Agreement and Positivity of PI-RADS Version 2 Among Radiologists with Different Levels of Experience. Academic Radiology. 2019;26(8):1017–22.

12.

Purysko

, et al. , Accuracy and Interobserver Agreement for Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, Version 2, for the Characterization of Lesions Identified on Multiparametric MRI of the Prostate. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2017;209(2):339–49.

13.

Branger

, et al. , Is negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging really able to exclude significant prostate cancer? The real-life experience. BJU Int. 2017;119(3):449–55.

14.

Müller

, et al. , Poor reproducibility of PIRADS score in two multiparametric MRIs before biopsy in men with elevated PSA. World J Urol. 2018;36(5):687–91.

15.

Greer

, et al. , Accuracy and agreement of PIRADSv2 for prostate cancer mpMRI: A multireader study. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017;45(2):579–85.

16.

Chaloupka

, et al. , Detection of Gleason 6 prostate cancer in patients with clinically significant prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2019;73(1):105–111.

17.

Stonier

, et al. , The “Is mpMRI Enough” or IMRIE Study: A Multicentre Evaluation of Prebiopsy Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Compared with Biopsy. Eur Urol Focus. 2020.

18.

Toner

, et al. , Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer-a comparative study including radical prostatectomy specimens. World J Urol. 2017;35(6):935–41.

19.

, et al. , The accuracy of prostate lesion localization in cognitive fusion. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2020;74(3):223–9.

20.

Kam

, et al. , Evaluation of the accuracy of multiparametric MRI for predicting prostate cancer pathology and tumour staging in the real world: an multicentre study. BJU Int. 2019;124(2):297–301.

21.

van Leenders

GJLH

, et al. , The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. The American Journal of Surgical Pathology. 2020;44(8).

22.

Epstein

, et al. , The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40(2):244–52.

23.

Weinreb

, et al. , PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69(1):16–40.

24.

Barentsz

, et al. , ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(4):746–57.

25.

Walker

, et al. , Prospective Evaluation of PI-RADS Version 2.1 for Prostate Cancer Detection. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2020;215(5):1098–103.

26.

Stabile

, et al. , Factors Influencing Variability in the Performance of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review. European Urology Oncology. 2020;3(2):145–67.

27.

Sheridan

, et al. , MRI-Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsy of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 Category 5 Lesions Found False-Positive at Multiparametric Prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;210(5):W218–w225.