Back to Authors

Cannoletta, Donato

0009-0007-4612-2440

Mayo Clinic

Vita-Salute San Raffaele University

Citations 2

Utility of MRI perilesional biopsy in prostate cancer: impact of the Prostate Imaging‐Reporting and Data System and biopsy history
Cannoletta, Donato , Quarta, Leonardo , Pellegrino, Francesco , Scuderi, Simone , Porzi, Maria Elena, Robesti, Daniele , Gandaglia, Giorgio , Karnes, R. Jeffrey , Montorsi, Francesco , Briganti, Alberto , Larcher, Alessandro , Stabile, Armando , Quarta, Leonardo , Pellegrino, Francesco , Scuderi, Simone , Robesti, Daniele , Mazzone, Elio , Karnes, Jeffrey , Montorsi, Francesco , Stabile, Armando , Barletta, Francesco Maria , Scilipoti, Pietro , Longoni, Mattia , Brembilla, Giorgio , COBELLI, Francesco DE , Rouprêt, Morgan

BJU International | October 13, 2025 | Volume: 137 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 282-288

10.1111/bju.70027 Get It

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.
Biparametric vs Multiparametric MRI for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis
Ng, Alexander , Asif, Aqua , Gómez‐Gómez, Enrique , Budäus, Lars, Barrett, Tristan , Radtke, Jan Philipp , Kesch, Claudia, Pham, Tho, Tewari, Ash , Cabello, M.A. Rodríguez , Mynderse, Lance A. , Borghi, Marcelo, Boesen, Lars , Singh, Paras B. , Renard‐Penna, Raphaële , Leow, Jeffrey J. , Pecoraro, Martina , Giannarini, Gianluca , Perlis, Nathan , López-Ruiz, Daniel, Rossiter, Marimo , Khetrapal, Pramit , Chan, Vinson Wai‐Shun , Haider, Aiman , Clarke, Caroline S. , Dickinson, Louise , Mitra, Anita, Margolis, Daniel J. A., Takwoingi, Yemisi , Emberton, Mark , Allen, Clare, Moore, Caroline M. , Kasivisvanathan, Veeru , Collaborators, PRIME Study Group, Briganti, Alberto , Evangelista, Alex, Freeman, Alex , Kirkham, Alex, Zlotta, Alexandre R. , Grey, Alistair, Ryan, Andrew, Borrelli, Antonella , Andrews, Antonette, Finelli, Antonio , Sancho, Arturo Platas, Baring, Ashley, Roy, Ashoke, Issa, Balqiisa, Israël, Bas , González, Carolina Aulló, English, Caroline, Zuiani, Chiara , Amate, Cristina, Yong, Daniel , Rozze, Davide, Lomas, Derek J. , Cannoletta, Donato , Chang, Eileen Wang, Chun, Felix, Zussino, Gaia , Antoch, Gerald , Gandaglia, Giorgio, Sauter, Guido , Thevarajah, Harini, Sorrell, Harriet, McBain, Hazel, Reis, Henning , Pita, Hernando Ríos , Potyka, Ingrid , Collavino, Jeanlou, Koshy, Jincy, Weng, Jing Yi , Withington, John, Egmond, Joke van, Piper, Jon, O’Brien, Jonathan , Rosa, José Valero, Sanz, Juan Luis , Quesada, Juan Mesa, Jannusch, Kai , Corr, Kateri , Haines, Kenneth, Umutlu, Lale , Quarta, Leonardo, Casarotto, Letizia, Gimeno, Linda , Moretti, Lucas, Laschena, Ludovica , Drewes, Lukas, Ostos, Manuel Sanchez, Peris, M., Volpacchio, Mariano , Prentice, Mark, Graefen, Markus , Soligo, Matteo, Boschheidgen, Matthias , Singhera, M., Wenzel, Mike, Fatterpekar, Monali, Al‐Nader, Mulham , Kachanov, Mykyta , Shaida, Nadeem , Muirhead, Nicola , Vasdev, Nikhil , Sanmugalingam, Nimalan , Nørgaard, Nis , Vicente, Pete, Incze, Peter , Ryan, Philip, Rouvier, Philippe , Mead, Phoebe, Mozer, Pierre, Viana, Públio César Cavalcante , Jiménez, Rafael E. , Novotta, Réka, Huang, Richard, O’Sullivan, Richard, Jepsen, Rikke Karlin , Frese, Robert, Clow, Rosemary, Al‐Monajjed, Rouvier , Lewis, Sara , Cashman, Sophia, Pizzolitto, Stefano, Lelie, S., Lindner, Sydney, Al‐Hammouri, Tarek , Sánchez, Teresa González, Reid, Thomas, McClure, Timothy, Maurer, Tobias , Peruzzi, Valeria, Tan, Wei Phin, Nahas, William Carlos, Chong, Yew Lam, Agarwal, Ridhi , Panebianco, Valeria , Girometti, Rossano , Ghai, Sangeet , COBELLI, Francesco DE , Pham, Tho, Taneja, Samir S. , Hu, Jim C. , Dias, Adriano Basso , Falkenbach, Fabian , Kastner, Christof , Schimmöller, Lars , Nathan, Arjun , Punwani, Shonit , Brew‐Graves, Chris , Brembilla, Giorgio , Margolis, Daniel , Giganti, Francesco , Collaborators, PRIME Study Group, Crestani, Alessandro , Sciarra, Alessandro , Evangelista, Alex, Kirkham, Alex P. S. , Grey, Alistair, Blanca, Ana , Bjartell, Anders , Tong, Angela , Warren, Anne Y. , Ciardi, Antonio , Rannikko, Antti , Stabile, Armando , Villers, Arnauld A. , Issa, Balqiisa, Hadaschik, Boris Alexander , English, Caroline L, Lee, Chau Hung , Caris, Christien T.M. , Stempel, Conrad von , Rozze, Davide, Messina, Emanuele , Chun, Felix, Gandaglia, Giorgio, Robert, G. , Caglič, Iztok , Theysohn, Jens Matthias , Grummet, Jeremy , Koshy, Jincy, Wilkinson, John, Withington, John, Egmond, Joke van, Deeks, Jonathan J , O'Brien, Jonathan, Quesada, Juan Mesa, Quarta, Leonardo , Orecchia, Luca , Moretti, Lucas, Rooij, Maarten de , Bicchetti, Marco , Gatti, Marco , Peris, María de los Desamparados Esteban, Roethke, Matthias Claudius , Monte, Maurizio Del, Wenzel, Mike, Takahashi, Naoki , Fleshner, Neil , Albers, Peter , Mead, Phoebe, Visschere, Pieter De , Huang, Richard, Shah, Syed Ahmar , Sanchez, Teresa González, Bathala, Tharakeswara K , Kwast, Theodorus van der , Reid, Thomas, Løgager, Vibeke , Prabhu, Vinay , Wagaskar, Vinayak Gorakhnath , Tan, Wei Phin, Nahas, William Carlos, Witjes, Wim P.J. , Chong, Yew Lam

JAMA | September 10, 2025 | Volume: 334 | Issue: 13 | Pages: 1170

10.1001/jama.2025.13722 Get It

Importance Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without prostate biopsy, has become the standard of care for diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer. Resource capacity limits widespread adoption. Biparametric MRI, which omits the gadolinium contrast sequence, is a shorter and cheaper alternative offering time-saving capacity gains for health systems globally. Objective To assess whether biparametric MRI is noninferior to multiparametric MRI for diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants A prospective, multicenter, within-patient, noninferiority trial of biopsy-naive men from 22 centers (12 countries) with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer (elevated prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level and/or abnormal digital rectal examination findings) from April 2022 to September 2023, with the last follow-up conducted on December 3, 2024. Interventions Participants underwent multiparametric MRI, comprising T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast–enhanced (DCE) sequences. Radiologists reported abbreviated biparametric MRI first (T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted), blinded to the DCE sequence. After unblinding, radiologists reported the full multiparametric MRI. Patients underwent a targeted biopsy with or without systematic biopsy if either biparametric MRI or multiparametric MRI was suggestive of clinically significant prostate cancer. Main outcomes and measures The primary outcome was the proportion of men with clinically significant prostate cancer. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of men with clinically insignificant cancer. The noninferiority margin was 5%. Results Of 555 men recruited, 490 were included for primary outcome analysis. Median age was 65 (IQR, 59-70) years and median PSA level was 5.6 (IQR, 4.4-8.0) ng/mL. The proportion of patients with abnormal digital rectal examination findings was 12.7%. Biparametric MRI was noninferior to multiparametric MRI, detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in 143 of 490 men (29.2%), compared with 145 of 490 men (29.6%) (difference, −0.4 [95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4] percentage points; P = .50). Biparametric MRI detected clinically insignificant cancer in 45 of 490 men (9.2%), compared with 47 of 490 men (9.6%) with the use of multiparametric MRI (difference, −0.4 [95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4] percentage points). Central quality control demonstrated that 99% of scans were of adequate diagnostic quality. Conclusion and relevance In men with suspected prostate cancer, provided image quality is adequate, an abbreviated biparametric MRI scan, with or without targeted biopsy, could become the new standard of care for prostate cancer diagnosis. With approximately 4 million prostate MRIs performed globally annually, adopting biparametric MRI could substantially increase scanner throughput and reduce costs worldwide. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04571840