Pellegrino, Francesco

Objective To investigate the diagnostic performance of perilesional biopsies (PLBx) compared to other biopsy strategies, assessing the impact of the Prostate Imaging‐Reporting and Data System (PI‐RADS) score and biopsy history in patients with a visible lesion at multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate (mpMRI), as the European Association of Urology guidelines recommend combining MRI‐targeted biopsies (TBx) with PLBx as an alternative to systematic biopsies (SBx) even though evidence is limited. Patients and Methods We relied on a cohort of 2852 patients with PI‐RADS ≥3 lesions undergoing TBx + SBx at three tertiary referral centres. The primary outcome was detection of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) (International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group [ISUP GG] ≥2) of TBx + PLBx vs TBx + SBx. Results were stratified by PI‐RADS score and biopsy history. The PLBx cores were defined as samples taken from prostate sectors adjacent to the mpMRI lesion. We finally assessed insignificant PCa (insPCa, i.e., ISUP GG 1) detection across biopsy strategies. Differences were assessed using the chi‐square test. Results Detection of csPCa was 48%. Overall, TBx + SBx had a higher csPCa detection rate than TBx + PLBx (50% vs 45%, P = 0.03), particularly in PI‐RADS 3 lesions (26% vs 21%, P = 0.02) and active surveillance (AS) patients (46% vs 40%, P = 0.04). No significant differences were found in PI‐RADS 4 (53% vs 50%, P > 0.1) or PI‐RADS 5 (76% vs 75%, P > 0.1). In the biopsy naïve and previous negative biopsy groups, csPCa detection was similar between strategies ( P > 0.1). Conclusions Overall, TBx + SBx offers the highest detection of csPCa. Even though TBx + PLBx may be considered in PI‐RADS 4–5 lesions to reduce insPCa detection, TBx + SBx remains the preferred strategy for PI‐RADS 3 and AS patients.

Objective To assess the relationship between the volume of the index lesion (IL) measured at multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI; MRIvol) and at radical prostatectomy (RPvol), stratifying it according to Prostate Imaging‐Reporting and Data System (PI‐RADS) score. Patients and Methods We identified 332 men with a positive mpMRI (single lesion with PI‐RADS ≥3) who underwent systematic plus targeted biopsy and subsequent RP at two tertiary referral centres between 2013 and 2018. All mpMRIs were reviewed by experienced radiologists using PI‐RADS scores. The study outcome was to assess the relationship between MRIvol (based on planimetry from MRI sequence best showing tumour) and RPvol (based on tumour involved area of each RP pathology slice). To achieve this endpoint, we performed a multivariable linear regression analysis (LRA) to predict RPvol using PI‐RADS, prostate‐specific antigen level, prostate volume, age, digital rectal examination, Gleason score at MRI‐targeted biopsy, biopsy history and time from mpMRI to RP as covariates. Non‐parametric locally estimated scatterplot smoothing (LOESS) function was used to graphically explore the relationship between MRIvol and RPvol, stratifying for PI‐RADS score. Results Overall, 24%, 49% and 27% of men had visible PI‐RADS 3, 4 and 5 lesions at mpMRI. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) MRIvol and RPvol were 0.67 (0.29–1.76) mL and 1.39 (0.58–4.23) mL. At LRA, MRIvol was significantly correlated with a RPvol underestimation (slope: 2.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.1–46.3). The non‐parametric LOESS analysis showed a non‐linear relationship between MRIvol and RPvol. Significant underestimation was reported across all volumes with the highest differences between MRIvol and RPvol in the low volume range (<2 mL), where RPvol almost doubled MRIvol. A similar effect was observed across all PI‐RADS scores subgroups. Conclusions In the present study, mpMRI significantly underestimated the exact volume of the IL, especially for small visible lesions, regardless of PI‐RADS score. This should be considered when planning tailored focal therapy approaches often delivered to men with smaller prostatic lesions.