Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment in Biopsy-naïve Patients: The Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator in Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound (TRUS) Fusion Biopsy and Systematic TRUS Biopsy

Background: The value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and targeted biopsy (TBx) remains controversial for biopsy-naïve men when compared to transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided systematic biopsy (SBx). Risk-based patient selection could help to selectively identify men with significant prostate cancer (PCa) and thus reduce unnecessary mpMRI and biopsies.

Objectives: To compare PCa detection rates for mpMRI TBx with SBx and to determine the rate of potentially avoided mpMRI and biopsies through risk-based selection using the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (RPCRC).

Design, setting, and participants: Two-hundred consecutive biopsy-naïve men in two centres underwent mpMRI scanning, 12-core SBx, and subsequent MRI-TRUS TBx in the case of suspicious lesion(s) (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System v.2 score ≥3).

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: We measured the detection rate for high-grade (Gleason score ≥ 3+4) PCa for TBx and SBx. We carried out a retrospective stratification according to RPCRC biopsy advice to determine the rate of mpMRI and biopsies that could potentially be avoided by RPCRC-based patient selection in relation to the rate of high-grade PCa missed.

Results and limitations: TBx yielded high-grade PCa in 51 men (26%) and low-grade PCa in 14 men (7%), while SBx yielded high-grade PCa in 63 men (32%) and low-grade PCa in 41 men (21%). Four out of 73 men (5%) with negative RPCRC advice and 63 out of 127 men (50%) with positive advice had high-grade PCa. Upfront RPCRC-based patient selection for mpMRI and TBx would have avoided 73 out of 200 (37%) mpMRI scans, missing two out of 51 (4%) high-grade PCas. Limitations include the RPCRC definition of high- and low-grade PCa and different mpMRI techniques.

Conclusions: mpMRI with TBx detected PCa with high Gleason score and avoided biopsy in low-grade PCa, but failed to detect all high-grade PCa when compared to SBx among biopsy-naïve men. Risk-based patient selection using the RPCRC can avoid one-third of mpMRI scans and SBx in biopsy-naïve men.

Patient summary: Men with a suspicion of prostate cancer are increasingly undergoing a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. Although promising, MRI-targeted biopsy is not accurate enough to safely replace systematic prostate biopsy for now. Individualised assessment of prostate cancer risk using the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator could avoid one-third of MRI scans and systematic prostate biopsies.