Search

Objective: To examine the extent to which the urologist performing biopsy contributes to variation in prostate cancer detection during fusion-guided prostate biopsy., Methods: All men in the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) clinical registry who underwent fusion biopsy at Michigan Medicine from August 2017 to March 2019 were included. The primary outcomes were clinically significant cancer detection rate (defined as Gleason Grade ≥2) in targeted cores and clinically significant cancer detection on targeted cores stratified by PI-RADS score. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed., Results: A total of 1133 fusion biopsies performed by 5 providers were included. When adjusting for patient age, PSA, race, family history, prostate volume, clinical stage, and PI-RADS score, there was no significant difference in targeted clinically significant cancer detection rates across providers (range = 38.5%-46.9%, adjusted P-value = .575). Clinically significant cancer detection rates ranged from 11.1% to 16.7% in PI-RADS 3 (unadjusted P = .838), from 24.6% to 43.4% in PI-RADS 4 (adjusted P = .003), and from 69.4% to 78.8% in PI-RADS 5 (adjusted P = .766) lesions., Conclusion: There was a statistically significant difference in clinically significant prostate cancer detection in PI-RADS 4 lesions across providers. These findings suggest that even among experienced providers, variation at the urologist level may contribute to differences in clinically significant cancer detection rates within PI-RADS 4 lesions. However, the relative impact of biopsy technique, radiologist interpretation, and MR acquisition protocol requires further study., Competing Interests: DECLARATION OF COMPETING INTEREST Simpa S. Salami is supported in part by the Prostate Cancer Foundation, Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health (the University of Michigan Prostate S.P.O.R.E., P50 CA186786-05; and the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center core grant, 2-P30-CA-046592–24), the Men of Michigan Prostate Cancer Research Fund, the A. Alfred Taubman Biomedical Research Institute, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation as part of the Harold Amos Medical Faculty Development Program (AMFDP), and the Urology Care Foundation Rising Stars in Urology Research Award Program and Astellas, Inc. He also is on a study advisory committee for Bayer Pharma and has a non-sponsored research agreement with GenomeDx. Matthew S. Davenport serves as the Treasurer of the Society of Advanced Body Imaging and receives royalties from Wolters Kluwer and uptodate.com. Arvin George has consulting agreements with Philips Medical (research) and Lina Medical (Consultant). For the remaining authors, there are no conflicts of interest., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: To evaluate the complementary value of urinary MyProstateScore (MPS) testing and multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and assess outcomes in patients with equivocal mpMRI., Materials and Methods: Included patients underwent mpMRI followed by urine collection and prostate biopsy at the University of Michigan between 2015 -2019. MPS values were calculated from urine specimens using the validated model based on serum PSA, urinary PCA3, and urinary TMPRSS2:ERG. In the PI-RADS 3 population, the discriminative accuracy of PSA, PSAD, and MPS for GG≥2 cancer was quantified by the AUC curve. Decision curve analysis was used to assess net benefit of MPS relative to PSAD., Results: There were 540 patients that underwent mpMRI and biopsy with MPS available. The prevalence of GG≥2 cancer was 13% for PI-RADS 3, 56% for PI-RADS 4, and 87% for PI-RADS 5. MPS was significantly higher in men with GG≥2 cancer [median 44.9, IQR (29.4 -57.5)] than those with negative or GG1 biopsy [median 29.2, IQR (14.8 -44.2); P <.001] in the overall population and when stratified by PI-RADS score. In the PI-RADS 3 population (n = 121), the AUC for predicting GG≥2 cancer was 0.55 for PSA, 0.62 for PSAD, and 0.73 for MPS. MPS provided the highest net clinical benefit across all pertinent threshold probabilities., Conclusion: In patients that underwent mpMRI and biopsy, MPS was significantly associated with GG≥2 cancer across all PI-RADS scores. In the PI-RADS 3 population, MPS significantly outperformed PSAD in ruling out GG≥2 cancer. These findings suggest a complementary role of MPS testing in patients that have undergone mpMRI., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: To evaluate the association of the MyProstateScore (MPS) urine test on the decision to undergo biopsy in men referred for prostate biopsy in urology practice., Methods: MPS testing was offered as an alternative to immediate biopsy in men referred to the University of Michigan for prostate biopsy from October 2013 through October 2016. The primary endpoint was the decision to perform biopsy. The proportion of patients undergoing biopsy was compared to predicted risk scores from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator (PCPTrc). Analyses were stratified by the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). The associations of PCPTrc, MPS, and mpMRI with the decision to undergo biopsy were explored in a multivariable logistic regression model., Results: Of 248 patients, 134 (54%) proceeded to prostate biopsy. MPS was significantly higher in biopsied patients (median 29 vs14, P < .001). The use of biopsy was strongly associated with MPS, with biopsy rates of 26%, 38%, 58%, 90%, and 85% in the first through fifth quintiles, respectively (P < .001). MPS association with biopsy persisted upon stratification by mpMRI. On multivariable analysis, MPS was strongly associated with the decision to undergo biopsy when modeled as both a continuous (odds ratio [OR] 1.05, 95%; confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.08; <.001) and binary (OR 7.76, 95%; CI 4.14-14.5; P < .001) variable., Conclusion: Many patients (46%) undergoing clinical MPS testing as an alternative to immediate prostate biopsy were able to avoid biopsy. Increasing MPS was strongly associated with biopsy rates. These findings were robust to use of mpMRI., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: To evaluate the integration of 3T nonendorectal coil multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) at 2 high-volume practices that routinely use mpMRI in the setting of active surveillance., Materials and Methods: This was an institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, and dual-institution retrospective cohort study. Subjects undergoing 3T mpMRI without endorectal coil at either study institution over a 13-month period (August 1, 2015-August 31, 2016) were selected based on predefined criteria: clinical T1/T2 Gleason 6 prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen <15 ng/mL, ≥40 years old, mpMRI within 2 years of prostate biopsy, and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2 score assigned. Subjects surveilled for Gleason ≥3 + 4 prostate cancer were excluded. The primary outcome was detection of Gleason ≥3 + 4 prostate cancer on magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy, standard biopsy, or prostatectomy within 6 months following mpMRI. Positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated., Results: A total of 286 subjects (N = 193 from institution 1, N = 93 from institution 2) met the criteria. Most (87% [90 of 104]) with maximum PI-RADS v2 scores of 1-2 did not receive immediate biopsy or treatment and remained on active surveillance. Incidence and PPVs for PI-RADS v2 scores of ≥3 were the following: PI-RADS 3 (n = 57 [20%], PPV 21% [6 of 29]), PI-RADS 4 (n = 96 [34%], PPV 51% [39 of 77]), and PI-RADS 5 (n = 29 [13%], PPV 71% [20 of 28]). No Gleason ≥4 + 3 prostate cancer was identified for PI-RADS v2 scores of 1-3 (0 of 43 with histology). Following mpMRI and subsequent biopsy, 21% (61 of 286) of subjects were removed from active surveillance and underwent definitive therapy., Conclusion: The 3T nonendorectal coil mpMRI has been integrated into the care of patients on active surveillance and effectively stratifies risk of Gleason ≥3 + 4 prostate cancer in this population., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)