Optimizing Detection and Prediction of Prostate Cancer after Positive MRI and Negative Biopsies
Fabio Zattoni,Giorgio Gandaglia,Roderick van den Bergh,Giancarlo Marra,Massimo Valerio,Jonathan Olivier,Ignacio Puche Sanzl,Pawel Rajwa,Martina Maggi,Riccardo Campi,Filippo Carletti,Daniele Amparore,Sabrina De Cillis,Hongqian Guo,Alessandro Veccia,Francesco Ditonno,Leonor James Paulino Pereira,Francesco Barletta,Riccardo Leni,Juan Gomez Rivas,Sebastian Remmers,Monique J. Roobol,Alessandro Antonelli,Fabrizio Dal Moro,Giacomo Novara
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0302-2838(24)00866-2
2024-01-01
Abstract:You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Detection & Screening III (MP31)1 May 2024MP31-01 OPTIMIZING DETECTION AND PREDICTION OF PROSTATE CANCER AFTER POSITIVE MRI AND NEGATIVE BIOPSIES Fabio Zattoni, Giorgio Gandaglia, Roderick van den Bergh, Giancarlo Marra, Massimo Valerio, Jonathan Olivier, Ignacio Puche Sanzl, Pawel Rajwa, Martina Maggi, Riccardo Campi, Filippo Carletti, Daniele Amparore, Sabrina De Cillis, Hongqian Guo, Alessandro Veccia, Francesco Ditonno, Leonor James Paulino Pereira, Francesco Barletta, Riccardo Leni, Juan Gómez Rivas, Sebastian Remmers, Monique J. Roobol, Alessandro Antonelli, Fabrizio Dal Moro, and Giacomo Novara Fabio ZattoniFabio Zattoni , Giorgio GandagliaGiorgio Gandaglia , Roderick van den BerghRoderick van den Bergh , Giancarlo MarraGiancarlo Marra , Massimo ValerioMassimo Valerio , Jonathan OlivierJonathan Olivier , Ignacio Puche SanzlIgnacio Puche Sanzl , Pawel RajwaPawel Rajwa , Martina MaggiMartina Maggi , Riccardo CampiRiccardo Campi , Filippo CarlettiFilippo Carletti , Daniele AmparoreDaniele Amparore , Sabrina De CillisSabrina De Cillis , Hongqian GuoHongqian Guo , Alessandro VecciaAlessandro Veccia , Francesco DitonnoFrancesco Ditonno , Leonor James Paulino PereiraLeonor James Paulino Pereira , Francesco BarlettaFrancesco Barletta , Riccardo LeniRiccardo Leni , Juan Gómez RivasJuan Gómez Rivas , Sebastian RemmersSebastian Remmers , Monique J. RoobolMonique J. Roobol , Alessandro AntonelliAlessandro Antonelli , Fabrizio Dal MoroFabrizio Dal Moro , and Giacomo NovaraGiacomo Novara View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008936.35187.0b.01AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the detection and predictors of prostate cancer (PCA) and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCA) in patients with positive multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) followed by negative MRI-guided target biopsy (TB) and systematic biopsy (SB). METHODS: This retrospective multicenter study involved 694 patients from 10 tertiary referral centers who initially had a positive mpMRI with a PI-RADS score of≥3 but subsequent negative results on both MRI-TB and SB. Patients were classified into three groups based on follow-up strategies: Group 1 (prostate re-biopsy without new mpMRI), Group 2 (second prostate mpMRI and subsequent re-biopsy as per protocol), and Group 3 (follow-up with mpMRIs and biopsy based on clinical and radiological triggers). Various follow-up strategies were employed, including re-biopsy, repeat mpMRI, and clinical follow-up based on predefined triggers according to the three groups. RESULTS: The study found that the overall detection of PCA and csPCA was 26.8% and 19.3%, respectively, with varying rates in different PI-RADS groups. Group 3 exhibited the highest 2-year and 5-year PCA-free survival rates (94% and 84%) and csPCA-free survival rates (96% and 86%). Multivariable analysis revealed a significantly higher risk of PCA and csPCA in Group 1 compared to Group 3. Clinical and radiological predictors for PCA and csPCA included higher age, prostate volume, PI-RADS score, the presence of atypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP), and a smaller number of TB and SB performed during the initial biopsy. Study limitations included its retrospective design and reliance on clinical and radiological triggers for follow-up decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with positive mpMRI but negative TB and SB results exhibit varying rates of PCA and csPCA depending on the follow-up scheme. Tailored follow-up strategies are essential for optimal management in this clinical scenario. Download PPTDownload PPT Source of Funding: None © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e503 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Fabio Zattoni More articles by this author Giorgio Gandaglia More articles by this author Roderick van den Bergh More articles by this author Giancarlo Marra More articles by this author Massimo Valerio More articles by this author Jonathan Olivier More articles by this author Ignacio Puche Sanzl More articles by this author Pawel Rajwa More articles by this author Martina Maggi More articles by this author Riccardo Campi More articles by this author Filippo Carletti More articles by this author Daniele Amparore More articles by this author Sabrina De Cillis More articles by this author Hongqian Guo More articles by this author Alessandro Veccia More articles by this author Francesco Ditonno More articles by this author Leonor James Paulino Pereira More articles by this author Francesco Barletta More articles by this author Riccardo Leni More articles by this author Juan Gómez Rivas More articles by this author Sebastian Remmers More articles by this author Monique J. Roobol More articles by this author Alessandro Antonelli More articles by this author Fabrizio Dal Moro More articles by this author Giacomo Novara More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...