The Added Value of Side-specific Systematic Biopsy in Patients Diagnosed by Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsy.

Systematic biopsy (SB) combined with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy is still recommended considering the risk of missing clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).

To evaluate the added value in csPCa detection on side-specific SB relative to MRI lesion and to externally validate the Noujeim risk stratification model that predicts the risk of csPCa on distant SB cores relative to the index MRI lesion.

Overall, 4841 consecutive patients diagnosed by MRI-targeted biopsy and SB for Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score ≥3 lesions were identified from a prospectively maintained database between January 2016 and April 2023 at 15 European referral centers. A total of 2387 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis.

McNemar's test was used to compare the csPCa detection rate between several biopsy strategies including MRI-targeted biopsy, side-specific SB, and a combination of both. Model performance was evaluated in terms of discrimination using area under the receiver operation characteristic curve (AUC), calibration plots, and decision curve analysis. Clinically significant prostate cancer was defined as International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2.

Overall, the csPCa detection rate was 49%. Considering MRI-targeted biopsy as reference, the added values in terms of csPCa detection were 5.8% (relative increase of 13%), 4.2% (relative increase of 9.8%), and 2.8% (relative increase of 6.1%) for SB, ipsilateral SB, and contralateral SB, respectively. Only 35 patients (1.5%) exclusively had csPCa on contralateral SB (p < 0.001). Considering patients with csPCa on MRI-targeted biopsy and ipsilateral SB, the upgrading rate was 2% (20/961) using contralateral SB (p < 0.001). The Noujeim model exhibited modest performance (AUC of 0.63) when tested using our validation set.

The added value of contralateral SB was negligible in terms of cancer detection and upgrading rates. The Noujeim model could be included in the decision-making process regarding the appropriate prostate biopsy strategy.

In the present study, we collected a set of patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted and systematic biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer. We found that biopsies taken at the opposite side of the MRI suspicious lesion have a negligible impact on cancer detection. We also validate a risk stratification model that predicts the risk of cancer on biopsies beyond 10 mm from the initial lesion, which could be used in daily practice to improve the personalization of the prostate biopsy.

European urology oncology. 2024 Jan 24 [Epub ahead of print]

Henri-Alexandre Bourgeno, Teddy Jabbour, Arthur Baudewyns, Yolène Lefebvre, Mariaconsiglia Ferriero, Giuseppe Simone, Alexandre Fourcade, Georges Fournier, Marco Oderda, Paolo Gontero, Adrian Bernal-Gomez, Alessandro Mastrorosa, Jean-Baptiste Roche, Rawad Abou Zahr, Guillaume Ploussard, Gaelle Fiard, Adam Halinski, Katerina Rysankova, Charles Dariane, Gina Delavar, Julien Anract, Nicolas Barry Delongchamps, Alexandre Patrick Bui, Fayek Taha, Olivier Windisch, Daniel Benamran, Gregoire Assenmacher, Léonidas Vlahopoulos, Karsten Guenzel, Thierry Roumeguère, Alexandre Peltier, Romain Diamand

Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium., Department of Radiology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium., Department of Urology, IRCCS "Regina Elena" National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy., Department of Urology, Hôpital Cavale Blanche, CHRU Brest, Brest, France., Department of Urology, Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, University of Turin, Turin, Italy., Department of Urology, Clinique Saint-Augustin, Bordeaux, France., Department of Urology, La Croix du Sud Hospital, Quint Fonsegrives, France., Department of Urology, Grenoble Alpes University Hospital, Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, TIMC, Grenoble, France., Department of Urology, Private Medical Center "Klinika Wisniowa", Zielona Góra, Poland., Department of Urology, University Hospital Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic., Department of Urology, Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou, Université de Paris, Paris, France., Departement of Urology, Hôpital Cochin, Paris, France., Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Reims, Reims, France., Department of Urology, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland., Department of Urology, Cliniques de l'Europe-Saint Elisabeth, Brussels, Belgium., Department of Urology, Vivantes Klinikum am Urban, Berlin, Deutschland., Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. Electronic address: .

Go Beyond the Abstract and Read a Commentary by the Author