Abstract

The PRECISION trial provides level 1 evidence supporting prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) followed by targeted biopsy only when mpMRI is abnormal [1]. This approach reduced over-detection of low-grade cancer while increasing detection of clinically significant cancer (CSC). Still, important questions remain regarding the reproducibility of these findings outside of a clinical trial and quantifying missed CSC diagnoses using this approach. To address these issues, we retrospectively applied the PRECISION strategy in men who each underwent prebiopsy mpMRI followed by systematic and targeted biopsy.Clinical, imaging, and pathology data were prospectively collected from 358 biopsy naïve men and 202 men with previous negative biopsies. To apply the PRECISION approach, a retrospective analysis was done comparing the cancer yield from 2 diagnostic strategies: (1) mpMRI followed by targeted biopsy alone for men with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System = 3 lesions and (2) systematic biopsy alone for all men. Primary outcomes were biopsies avoided and the proportion of CSC cancer (Grade Group 2-5) and non-CSC (Grade Group 1).In biopsy naïve patients, the mpMRI diagnostic strategy would have avoided 19% of biopsies while detecting 2.5% more CSC (P= 0.480) and 12% less non-CSC (P< 0.001). Thirteen percent (n= 9) of men with normal mpMRI had CSC on systematic biopsy. For previous negative biopsy patients, the mpMRI diagnostic strategy avoided 21% of biopsies, while detecting 1.5% more CSC (P= 0.737) and 13% less non-CSC (P< 0.001). Seven percent (n= 3) of men with normal mpMRI had CSC on systematic biopsy.Our results provide external validation of the PRECISION finding that mpMRI followed by targeted biopsy of suspicious lesions reduces biopsies and over-diagnosis of low-grade cancer. Unlike PRECISION, we did not find increased diagnosis of CSC. This was true in both biopsy naïve and previously negative biopsy cohorts. We have incorporated this information into shared decision making, which has led some men to choose to avoid biopsy. However, we continue to recommend targeted and systematic biopsy in men with abnormal MRI.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.05.002

View details for PubMedID 31151788