Comparison of Multiparametric MRI-Targeted Biopsy With Systematic Transrectal Ultrasonography–Guided Biopsy | Oncology | JN Learning | AMA Ed Hub [Skip to Content]
Outline
Quiz
PDF
Radiology

Comparison of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Targeted Biopsy With Systematic Transrectal Ultrasonography Biopsy for Biopsy-Naive Men at Risk for Prostate CancerA Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial

Educational Objective
To learn the outcomes of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–targeted prostate biopsy compared with systematic transrectal ultrasonography biopsy in men at risk for prostate cancer.
1 Credit CME
JAMA Oncology
April 1, 2021
Original Investigation
Laurence Klotz, CM, MD1;
Joseph Chin, MD2;
Peter C. Black, MD3;
Antonio Finelli, MD4;
Maurice Anidjar, MD5;
Franck Bladou, MD1,6;
Ashley Mercado, MD3;
Mark Levental, MD5;
Sangeet Ghai, MD4;
Sylvia D. Chang, MD7;
Laurent Milot, MD8;
Chirag Patel, MD1;
Zahra Kassam, MD2;
Caroline Moore, MD9;
Veeru Kasivisvanathan, MD9;
Andrew Loblaw, MD10;
Marlene Kebabdjian, BSc1;
Craig C. Earle, MD11;
Greg R. Pond, PhD12;
Masoom A. Haider, MD13
Author Affiliations
  • 1Division of Urology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • 2London Health Sciences Centre, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
  • 3Vancouver Prostate Centre, Department of Urologic Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  • 4Princess Margaret Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • 5Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada
  • 6Universite de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France
  • 7Department of Radiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  • 8Body and VIR Radiology Department, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Hospital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France
  • 9University College London, London, England
  • 10Institute of Healthcare Policy and Management, Department of Radiation Oncology, Ontario Institute of Cancer Research, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • 11Ontario Institute of Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • 12Department of Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  • 13Toronto General Hospital, Department of Radiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Read article on JAMA Network

MOC/CME Information

editorial comment icon
Editorial
Comment
 related articles icon
Related
Articles
 author interview icon
Interviews
 multimedia icon
Multimedia
Read Article Take Quiz
Key Points

Question  Is magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with targeted biopsy only noninferior to systematic biopsy for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa)?

Findings  In this prospective phase 3 randomized clinical trial of 453 men, clinically significant cancer was found in 35% vs 30% in the MRI and systematic biopsy arms, respectively, which demonstrated noninferiority. A total of 79 participants in the MRI arm (37%) avoided a biopsy, and diagnosis of grade group 1 PCa was reduced by more than 50%.

Meaning  Magnetic resonance imaging with targeted biopsy alone resulted in similar detection rates of clinically significant PCa while avoiding biopsy in more than one-third of men and reducing the diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer.

Abstract

Importance  Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with targeted biopsy is an appealing alternative to systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis, but has yet to be widely adopted.

Objective  To determine whether MRI with only targeted biopsy was noninferior to systematic TRUS biopsies in the detection of International Society of Urological Pathology grade group (GG) 2 or greater prostate cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants  This multicenter, prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted in 5 Canadian academic health sciences centers between January 2017 and November 2019, and data were analyzed between January and March 2020. Participants included biopsy-naive men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer who were advised to undergo a prostate biopsy. Clinical suspicion was defined as a 5% or greater chance of GG2 or greater prostate cancer using the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator, version 2. Additional criteria were serum prostate-specific antigen levels of 20 ng/mL or less (to convert to micrograms per liter, multiply by 1) and no contraindication to MRI.

Interventions  Magnetic resonance imaging–targeted biopsy (MRI-TB) only if a lesion with a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), v 2.0, score of 3 or greater was identified vs 12-core systematic TRUS biopsy.

Main Outcome and Measures  The proportion of men with a diagnosis of GG2 or greater cancer. Secondary outcomes included the proportion who received a diagnosis of GG1 prostate cancer; GG3 or greater cancer; no significant cancer but subsequent positive MRI results and/or GG2 or greater cancer detected on a repeated biopsy by 2 years; and adverse events.

Results  The intention-to-treat population comprised 453 patients (367 [81.0%] White, 19 [4.2%] African Canadian, 32 [7.1%] Asian, and 10 [2.2%] Hispanic) who were randomized to undergo TRUS biopsy (226 [49.9%]) or MRI-TB (227 [51.1%]), of which 421 (93.0%) were evaluable per protocol. A lesion with a PI-RADS score of 3 or greater was detected in 138 of 221 men (62.4%) who underwent MRI, with 26 (12.1%), 82 (38.1%), and 30 (14.0%) having maximum PI-RADS scores of 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Eighty-three of 221 men who underwent MRI-TB (37%) had a negative MRI result and avoided biopsy. Cancers GG2 and greater were identified in 67 of 225 men (30%) who underwent TRUS biopsy vs 79 of 227 (35%) allocated to MRI-TB (absolute difference, 5%, 97.5% 1-sided CI, −3.4% to ∞; noninferiority margin, −5%). Adverse events were less common in the MRI-TB arm. Grade group 1 cancer detection was reduced by more than half in the MRI arm (from 22% to 10%; risk difference, −11.6%; 95% CI, −18.2% to −4.9%).

Conclusions and Relevance  Magnetic resonance imaging followed by selected targeted biopsy is noninferior to initial systematic biopsy in men at risk for prostate cancer in detecting GG2 or greater cancers.

Trial Registration  ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02936258

Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates

Buy This Activity

JN Learning™ is the home for CME and MOC from the JAMA Network. Search by specialty or US state and earn AMA PRA Category 1 CME Credit™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC

Related Articles

  1. Choosing the Right Diagnostic Pathway in Biopsy-Naive Patients With Suspected Prostate Cancer

  2. Errors in Author Names and Affiliations

See More About

Oncology Prostate Cancer Surgery Surgical Oncology Urology Urologic Cancer Radiology
Article Information

Accepted for Publication: November 6, 2020.

Published Online: February 4, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.7589

Corresponding Author: Laurence Klotz, CM, MD Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Ave, #MG 408, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada (laurence.klotz@sunnybrook.ca).

Correction: This article was corrected on April 15, 2021, to fix errors in multiple author names and affiliations.

Author Contributions: Drs Klotz and Haider had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Klotz, Chin, Black, Finelli, Ghai, Milot, Moore, Kasivisvanathan, Loblaw, Kebabdjian, Earle, Pond, Haider.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Klotz, Chin, Anidjar, Bladou, Mercado, Levental, Ghai, Chang, Milot, Patel, Kassam, Moore, Kasivisvanathan, Kebabdjian, Earle, Pond, Haider.

Drafting of the manuscript: Klotz, Kebabdjian, Pond, Haider.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Klotz, Chin, Black, Finelli, Anidjar, Bladou, Mercado, Levental, Ghai, Chang, Milot, Patel, Kassam, Moore, Kasivisvanathan, Loblaw, Earle, Pond, Haider.

Statistical analysis: Pond.

Obtained funding: Klotz, Moore, Loblaw, Haider.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Klotz, Chin, Bladou, Mercado, Levental, Ghai, Milot, Patel, Kasivisvanathan, Kebabdjian, Haider.

Supervision: Klotz, Black, Finelli, Moore, Kebabdjian, Haider.

Other - Expertise in medical imaging: Kassam.

Other - Interpretation of all MRIs and performance of all biopsies at 1 of the 5 sites: Ghai.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Chin reported grants from the Ontario Institute of Cancer Research (OICR) during the conduct of the study. Dr Levental reported grants from Prostate Cancer Canada (PCC) during the conduct of the study. Dr Moore reported grants from SpectraCure PDT, Movember, Medical Research Council, and Prostate Cancer UK as well as personal fees from Janssen, Astellas, and Steba Biotech Consultancy. Dr Kasivisvanathan reported personal fees from the European Association of Urology outside the submitted work. Dr Pond reported grants from the OICR during the conduct of the study, personal fees from AstraZeneca and Takeda outside the submitted work, and having a close family member who is an employee of Roche Canada Ltd and owns stock in Roche. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This study was funded by grants from the OICR and PCC.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Additional Contributions: We thank Kathryn Cline, BSc, for her assistance in trial coordination and data management and the Ontario Clinical Oncology Group, which performed the data management and treatment randomization under the supervision of Dr Pond. Ms Cline and Dr Pond performed the data management and the statistical analysis for the study and were paid for this service.

Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 4.

References
1.
Das  CJ , Razik  A , Sharma  S , Verma  S .  Prostate biopsy: when and how to perform.   Clin Radiol. 2019;74(11):853-864. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2019.03.016 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Moore  CM , Robertson  NL , Arsanious  N ,  et al.  Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review.   Eur Urol. 2013;63(1):125-140. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.06.004 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Villers  A , Puech  P , Mouton  D , Leroy  X , Ballereau  C , Lemaitre  L .  Dynamic contrast enhanced, pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging of localized prostate cancer for predicting tumor volume: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings.   J Urol. 2006;176(6 pt 1):2432-2437. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2006.08.007 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Johnson  DC , Raman  SS , Mirak  SA ,  et al.  Detection of individual prostate cancer foci via multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging.   Eur Urol. 2019;75(5):712-720. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.031 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Moldovan  PC , Van den Broeck  T , Sylvester  R ,  et al.  What is the negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in excluding prostate cancer at biopsy? a systematic review and meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer guidelines panel.   Eur Urol. 2017;72(2):250-266. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2017.02.026 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Kirkham  AP , Emberton  M , Allen  C .  How good is MRI at detecting and characterising cancer within the prostate?   Eur Urol. 2006;50(6):1163-1174. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2006.06.025 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Wu  LM , Xu  JR , Ye  YQ , Lu  Q , Hu  JN .  The clinical value of diffusion-weighted imaging in combination with T2-weighted imaging in diagnosing prostate carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199(1):103-110. doi:10.2214/AJR.11.7634 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Wu  LM , Xu  JR , Gu  HY ,  et al.  Usefulness of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer.   Acad Radiol. 2012;19(10):1215-1224. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2012.05.016 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Umbehr  M , Bachmann  LM , Held  U ,  et al.  Combined magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   Eur Urol. 2009;55(3):575-590. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2008.10.019 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Drost  FH , Osses  D , Nieboer  D ,  et al.  Prostate magnetic resonance imaging, with or without magnetic resonance imaging–targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis.   Eur Urol. 2020;77(1):78-94. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2019.06.023PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Borofsky  S , George  AK , Gaur  S ,  et al.  What are we missing? false-negative cancers at multiparametric MR imaging of the prostate.   Radiology. 2018;286(1):186-195. doi:10.1148/radiol.2017152877 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Klotz  L , Loblaw  A , Sugar  L ,  et al.  Active Surveillance Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study (ASIST): results of a randomized multicenter prospective trial.   Eur Urol. 2019;75(2):300-309. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2018.06.025 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Klotz  L , Pond  G , Loblaw  A ,  et al.  Randomized study of systematic biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging and targeted and systematic biopsy in men on active surveillance (ASIST): 2-year postbiopsy follow-up.   Eur Urol. 2020;77(3):311-317. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2019.10.007 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Chen  RC , Rumble  RB , Loblaw  DA ,  et al.  Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer (Cancer Care Ontario guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline endorsement.   J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(18):2182-2190. doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.65.7759 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Kasivisvanathan  V , Rannikko  AS , Borghi  M ,  et al; PRECISION Study Group Collaborators.  MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis.   N Engl J Med. 2018;378(19):1767-1777. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1801993 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Kasivisvanathan  V , Jichi  F , Klotz  L ,  et al.  A multicentre randomised controlled trial assessing whether MRI-targeted biopsy is non-inferior to standard transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in men without prior biopsy: a study protocol.   BMJ Open. 2017;7(10):e017863. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017863 PubMedGoogle Scholar
17.
Ahmed  HU , El-Shater Bosaily  A , Brown  LC ,  et al; PROMIS study group.  Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study.   Lancet. 2017;389(10071):815-822. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Rouvière  O , Puech  P , Renard-Penna  R ,  et al; MRI-FIRST Investigators.  Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study.   Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(1):100-109. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
van der Leest  M , Cornel  E , Israël  B ,  et al.  Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study.   Eur Urol. 2019;75(4):570-578. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Drost  FH , Osses  D , Nieboer  D ,  et al.  Prostate magnetic resonance imaging, with or without magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis.   Eur Urol. 2020;77(1):78-94. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2019.06.023 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Cheung  DC , Finelli  A .  Magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis of prostate cancer: promise and caution.   CMAJ. 2019;191(43):E1177-E1178. doi:10.1503/cmaj.190568 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
American College of Radiology. PI-RADS: prostate imaging–reporting and data system, 2015, version 2. Accessed September 15, 2020. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/RADS/Pi-RADS/PIRADS-V2.pdf
23.
Barentsz  JO , Weinreb  JC , Verma  S ,  et al.  Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 guidelines for multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and recommendations for use.   Eur Urol. 2016;69(1):41-49. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.038 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Haffner  J , Lemaitre  L , Puech  P ,  et al.  Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection.   BJU Int. 2011;108(8 Pt 2):E171-E178. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10112.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Kasivisvanathan  V , Dufour  R , Moore  CM ,  et al.  Transperineal magnetic resonance image targeted prostate biopsy versus transperineal template prostate biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.   J Urol. 2013;189(3):860-866. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.10.009PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Presti  JC  Jr .  Prostate biopsy: how many cores are enough?   Urol Oncol. 2003;21(2):135-140. doi:10.1016/S1078-1439(03)00006-1 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Pagniez  MA , Kasivisvanathan  V , Puech  P ,  et al.  Predictive factors of missed clinically significant prostate cancers in men with negative magnetic resonance imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   J Urol. 2020;204(1):24-32. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000000757 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Westphalen  AC , McCulloch  CE , Anaokar  JM ,  et al.  Variability of the positive predictive value of PI-RADS for prostate MRI across 26 centers: experience of the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused panel.   Radiology. 2020;296(1):76-84. doi:10.1148/radiol.2020190646 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Vickers  A , Carlsson  SV , Cooperberg  M ,  et al.  Routine use of magnetic resonance imaging for early detection of prostate cancer is not justified by the clinical trial evidence.   Eur Urol. 2020;78(3):304-306. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2020.04.016 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
jn-learning_Modal_Multimedia_LoginSubscribe_Purchase
Close
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
jn-learning_Modal_Multimedia_LoginSubscribe_Purchase
Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Close

Name Your Search

Save Search
Privacy Policy|Terms of Use
Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
jn-learning_Modal_SaveSearch_NoAccess_Purchase
Close

Lookup An Activity

or

Close

My Saved Searches

You currently have no searches saved.

Close
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Close
Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue