Does a large prostate size, small lesion volume, or long needle distance from the probe to the lesion reduce magnetic resonance imaging-targeted cancer detection?

Abstract

Background: We aimed to evaluate whether large prostate size, small lesion volume, or long lesion distance from the ultrasound probe tip would decrease cancer detection in transrectal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsies.

Materials and methods: Patients who underwent MRI-targeted biopsy at our institution between May 2017 and August 2019 were enrolled in a prospective database. Three to 5 cores were obtained from ≥2 prostate imaging reporting and data system v2 lesions. A multivariable model was created that included needle distance to the lesion, prostate specific antigen, prostate imaging reporting and data system, lesion volume, and prostate volume.

Results: A total of 377 patients with 533 lesions underwent a biopsy during the study period. A total of 233 (44%) lesions were positive for prostate cancer, and 173 (32%) lesions had clinically significant prostate cancer. The mean needle distance to the lesion was 11.7 mm (interquartile range, 7.6-15.5 mm). The likelihood of obtaining a positive core on biopsy decreased as the distance from the ultrasound probe increased for all prostate cancers and clinically significant prostate cancer (p = 0.018 and p = 0.004, respectively). Every 10 mm from the rectum, there was an 8%-10% decrease in the rate of cancer detection. Similarly, as the prostate volume increased, the odds of obtaining a positive core also decreased (p = 0.039). There was no significant association between the lesion size and amount of cancer obtained on biopsy.

Conclusions: Our data showed that transrectal MRI-targeted biopsy cancer detection modestly decreased the lesion from the ultrasound probe and with a large prostate volume but could not prove that lesion volume was a significant predictor of the amount of cancer detected.

Keywords

Prostate cancer / Biopsy / Magnetic resonance imaging

Acknowledgments

None.

Statement of ethics

This study was approved by University of Iowa's institutional review board. Informed consent was obtained from each individual patient for their participation and the publication of this study. All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Funding source

None.

Author contributions

Each author participated sufficiently in the intellectual content of the paper and approved it for submission.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

[1] Das CJ, Razik A, Netaji A, Verma S. Prostate MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy: A review of the state of the art procedure. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2020; 45(7):2176-2183.

[2] Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MG. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2015; 68(3):438-450.

[3] Greer MD, Shih JH, Lay N, et al. Validation of the dominant sequence paradigm and role of dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging in PI-RADS version 2. Radiology 2017; 285(3):859-869.

[4] Seles M, Gutschi T, Mayrhofer K, et al. Sampling of the anterior apical region results in increased cancer detection and upgrading in transrectal repeat saturation biopsy of the prostate. BJU Int 2016; 117(4):592-597.

[5] Kenigsberg AP, Tamada T, Rosenkrantz AB, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging identifies significant apical prostate cancers. BJU Int 2018; 121(2):239-243.

[6] Leyh-Bannurah SR, Kachanov M, Beyersdorff D, et al. Anterior localization of prostate cancer suspicious lesions in 1,161 patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided targeted biopsies. J Urol 2018; 200(5):1035-1040.

[7] Ching CB, Moussa AS, Li J, Lane BR, Zippe C, Jones JS. Does transrectal ultrasound probe configuration really matter? End fire versus side fire probe prostate cancer detection rates. J Urol 2009; 181(5):2077-2082.

[8] Rom M, Pycha A, Wiunig C, et al. Prospective randomized multicenter study comparing prostate cancer detection rates of end-fire and side-fire transrectal ultrasound probe configuration. Urology 2012; 80(1):15-18.

[9] Martorana E, Pirola GM, Scialpi M, et al. Lesion volume predicts prostate cancer risk and aggressiveness: Validation of its value alone and matched with prostate imaging reporting and data system score. BJU Int 2017; 120(1):92-103.

[10] Lu AJ, Syed JS, Ghabili K, et al. Role of core number and location in targeted magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 2019; 76(1):14-17.

[11] Bevill MD, Troesch V, Drobish JN, et al. Number of cores needed to diagnose prostate cancer during MRI targeted biopsy decreases after the learning curve. Urol Oncol 2022; 40(1):7.e19-7.e24.

[12] Dimitroulis P, Rabenalt R, Nini A, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy—Are 2 biopsy cores per magnetic resonance imaging lesion required? J Urol 2018; 200(5):1030-1034.

[13] Porpiglia F, De Luca S, Passera R, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy: Number and spatial distribution of cores for better index tumor detection and characterization. J Urol 2017; 198(1):58-64.

[14] Tracy CR, Flynn KJ, Sjoberg DD, Gellhaus PT, Metz CM, Ehdaie B. Optimizing MRI-targeted prostate biopsy: The diagnostic benefit of additional targeted biopsy cores. Urol Oncol 2021; 39(3):193.e1-193.e6.