Performance of MR fusion biopsy, systematic biopsy and combined biopsy on prostate cancer detection rate in 1229 patients stratified by PI-RADSv2 score on 3T multi-parametric MRI

• Published in: Abdominal imaging Vol. 50; no. 8; pp. 3784 - 3793
• Main Authors: Riskin-Jones, Hannah H., Raman, Alex G., Kulkarni, Rushikesh, Arnold, Corey W., Sisk, Anthony, Felker, Ely, Lu, David S., Marks, Leonard S., Raman, Steven S.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01.08.2025; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Aged; Biopsy; Data systems; Gastroenterology; Hepatology; Humans; Image-Guided Biopsy - methods; Imaging; Lesions; Magnetic resonance imaging; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods; Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Interventional; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Morbidity; Multimodal Imaging - methods; Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods; Patients; Prostate - diagnostic imaging; Prostate - pathology; Prostate cancer; Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging; Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology; Radiology; Retrospective Studies; Statistical analysis; Surveillance; Ultrasonic imaging; Ultrasonography, Interventional; Biopsy; MRI; Prostate Cancer
• ISSN: 2366-0058; 2366-004X; 2366-0058
• DOI: 10.1007/s00261-024-04753-3

Purpose We analyzed the additional value of systematic biopsy (SB) to MR-Ultrasound fusion biopsy (MRgFbx) for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), as increased sampling may cause increased morbidity. Materials and methods This retrospective study cohort was comprised of 1229 biopsy sessions between July 2016 and May 2020 in men who had a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADSv2) category ≥ 3 lesion on 3 Tesla multiparametric MRI (3TmpMRI) and subsequent combined biopsy (CB; MRgFbx and SB) for suspected prostate cancer (PCa). Cancer detection rates (CDR) were calculated for CB, MRgFbx and SB in the study cohort and sub-cohorts stratified by biopsy history and PI-RADSv2 category. For 927 men with unilateral MR-visible lesions, SB CDR was additionally calculated for contralateral (SBc) and ipsilateral (SBi) subcohorts. Results On CB, the CDR for csPCa was 54.8% (673/1229). CDR for csPCa was significantly higher for MRgFbx (50.0%, CI 47.1–52.8%) compared to SB (35.3%, CI 32.6–38.1%) for all PI-RADSv2 ≥ 3 categories (p < .05). The MRgFbx CDR for PI-RADSv2 categories 3, 4, and 5 were 81.5%, 88.5%, and 95.6% respectively. For unilateral lesion cases, significantly more csPCa was detected in the SBi compared to the SBc subcohort (30.1% (279/927) vs. 10.4%, (96/927), p  < 0.001). The combination of MRgFbx and SBi detected csPCa in 97.0% (480) of the 495 csPCa detected by CB. Conclusion MRgFbx had a higher CDR for csPCa than SB. While CB detected more csPCa than either method alone, in patients with a PI-RADSv2 category of 5, MRgFbx approximated the performance of CB. In unilateral lesion cases, SBc provided minimal added benefit.