Multi‐institutional nomogram predicting benign prostate pathology on magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion biopsy in men with a prior negative 12‐core systematic biopsy

Abstract

False-positive mpMRI examinations may occur in up to 46.3% of patients with a prior negative biopsy. Thus, a multi-institutional nomogram has been developed and validated for predicting benign pathology after FB in patients with a prior negative biopsy, and this may help to reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies in the setting of abnormal mpMRI findings. Cancer 2018;124:278-85. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer in magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography‐fusion transperineal targeted biopsy for lesions with a prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 score of 3–5

“…However, increasing evidence shows that lesions with PI‐RADS category 3 should be monitored without immediate biopsy to avoid unnecessary biopsy . In combination with additional clinical parameters, such as previous biopsy history, PV and PI‐RADS score, nomograms have yielded higher CSPC detection rates …”

“…[9][10][11][12] In combination with additional clinical parameters, such as previous biopsy history, PV and PI-RADS score, nomograms have yielded higher CSPC detection rates. 13,14 In the present retrospective study, we analyzed the usefulness of clinical parameters to predict biopsy results based on the CSPC detection rate of real-time MRI/US rigid fusion guided targeted biopsies at Tokyo Metropolitan Police Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. We also evaluated the necessity of biopsies in patients with PI-RADS category 3.…”

Reply to Evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy: The difficulty of finding the right reference standard

“…We appreciate the response by Berg and his colleagues to our recently published article, “Multi‐Institutional Nomogram Predicting Benign Prostate Pathology on Magnetic Resonance/Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy in Men With a Prior Negative 12‐Core Systematic Biopsy.” We fully agree that with the implementation of any new technology, there must be an appropriate reference standard. Perhaps most important of the comments put forth by Berg and his colleagues were those emphasizing the challenge of implementing a new prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) program with high‐quality outcomes.…”

Evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy: The difficulty of finding the right reference standard

“…We read with interest the study by Truong et al, who have proposed a novel tool for predicting benign prostate pathology after a prior negative 12‐core systematic biopsy. The study included 285 patients, and 46.3% had benign histological findings after targeted biopsy despite abnormal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).…”

“…Despite these limitations, the objective that Truong et al tried to investigate with their study is still useful: persistent imaging and laboratory evidence for prostate cancer despite a negative biopsy is a common and vexing problem. The ideal setting for creating a predictive nomogram to this end would involve MRI analysis and corresponding biopsy results together with whole‐mount specimens of the prostate to truly evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the new technology.…”