Managing Discordant Findings Between Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging–directed Prostate Biopsy—The Key Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging–directed Transperineal Biopsy

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

BackgroundDiscordant findings between multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and transrectal image-guided biopsies of the prostate (TRUS-P) may result in inadequate risk stratification of localized prostate cancer. ObjectiveTo assess transperineal image-guided biopsies of the index target (TPER-IT) in terms of disease reclassification and treatment recommendations. Design, setting, and participantsCases referred for suspicion or treatment of localized prostate cancer were reviewed in a multidisciplinary setting, and discordance was characterized into three scenarios: type I—negative biopsies or International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 1 cancer in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) ≥4 index target (IT); type II—negative biopsies or ISUP grade 1 cancer in anterior IT; and type III—<3 mm stretch of cancer in PI-RADS ≥3 IT. Discordant findings were characterized in 132/558 (23.7%) patients after TRUS-P. Of these patients, 102 received reassessment TPER-IT. Outcome measurements and statistical analysisThe primary objective was to report changes in treatment recommendations after TPER-IT. Therefore, cores obtained by primary TRUS-P and TPER-IT were analyzed in terms of cancer detection, ISUP grade, and Cambridge Prognostic Group classification using descriptive statistics. Results and limitationsTPER-IT biopsies that consisted of fewer cores than the initial TRUS-P (seven vs 14, p < 0.0001) resulted in more cancer tissue materials for analysis (56 vs 42.5 mm, p = 0.0003). As a result, 40% of patients initially considered for follow-up (12/30) and 49% for active surveillance (30/61) were reassigned after TPER-IT to surgery or intensity-modulated radiotherapy. ConclusionsNonconcordance between pathology and imaging was observed in a significant proportion of patients receiving TRUS-P. TPER-IT better informed the presence and grade of cancer, resulting in a significant impact on treatment recommendations. A multidisciplinary review of mpMRI and TRUS-P findings and reassessment TPER-IT in type I–II discordances is recommended. Patient summaryIn this report, patients with suspicious imaging of the prostate, but no or well-differentiated cancer on transrectal image-guided -biopsies, were offered transperineal image-guided biopsies for reassessment. We found that a large share of these had a more aggressive cancer than initially suspected. We conclude that discordant results warrant reassessment transperineal image-guided biopsies as these may impact disease risk classification and treatment recommendations.