Concordance of MRI-guided and systematic prostate biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa).

Abstract

277 Background: MRI/US guided biopsy (fusion biopsy) is increasingly utilized over systemic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy (12-core biopsy) for men with MRI-visible prostate lesions. Methods: Patients with MRI visible prostate lesions who underwent fusion and 12-core biopsy from 2016-2020 in the Intermountain Healthcare (IHC) system were consecutively analyzed. This was in the setting of a continuous quality assurance initiative among the reading radiologists. Primary outcome was PCa detection defined by Gleason grade group (GGG) 1 or higher. Clinically significant cancer (CSC) was defined as GGG 2 or higher. Patients were stratified by date biopsy was performed, 2016-2017 and 2018-2020, and lesions were stratified by PI-RADS v2 category. For men with multiple lesions, the highest PI-RADS v2 category lesion was used. Results: A total of 142 men with 254 MRI-detectable lesions underwent both fusion and 12-core biopsies in the IHC system from 2016 to 2020. CSC was detected in 21.6% (55/254) of fusion biopsies. Comparing PI-RAD v2 categories 1-3 to PI-RADS v2 categories 4-5, the PPV for detecting CSC was 9% (15/162) compared to 44% (40/92) respectively. Fusion and 12-core biopsies were concordant for any PCa in 79% of men (112/142) and CSC in 83% (118/142). Fusion biopsy detected any PCa in 22/84 (26%) and CSC in 15/103 (15%) of men in whom 12-core biopsy was negative. 12-core biopsy detected any PCa in 8/70 (11%) and CSC in 9/97 (9%) of men in whom fusion was negative. In total, 15 patients (11%) had a CSC that would have been missed if fusion biopsy was omitted while 9 (6%) had a CSC that would have been missed without 12-core biopsy. Conclusions: Omitting fusion or 12-core biopsy for PI-RADS v2 lesions would have resulted in a missed CSC in 11% or 6% of patients from 2016-20, respectively. The combination of MRI/US-guided fusion biopsy and systematic 12-core biopsy increased detection rate of CSC. These results are in the setting of a continuous, multi-disciplinary quality assurance program and results are not necessarily applicable to other healthcare systems. [Table: see text]