Search

IMPORTANCE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guidance improves the accuracy of prostate biopsy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, but the optimal use of such guidance is not yet clear. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cancer detection rate (CDR) of targeting MRI-visible lesions vs systematic prostate sampling in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in men who were biopsy naive. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This paired cohort trial, known as the Prospective Assessment of Image Registration in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer (PAIREDCAP) study, was conducted in an academic medical center from January 2015 to April 2018. Men undergoing first-time prostate biopsy were enrolled. Paired-cohort participants were a consecutive series of men with MRI-visible lesions (defined by a Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System version 2 score  ≥ 3), who each underwent 3 biopsy methods at the same sitting: first, a systematic biopsy; second, an MRI-lesion biopsy targeted by cognitive fusion; and third, an MRI-lesion targeted by software fusion. Another consecutive series of men without MRI-visible lesions underwent systematic biopsies to help determine the false-negative rate of MRI during the trial period. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason grade group ≥2) overall and by each biopsy method separately. The secondary end points were the effects of the Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System version 2 grade, prostate-specific antigen density, and prostate volume on the primary end point. Tertiary end points were the false-negative rate of MRI and concordance of biopsy-method results by location of detected cancers within the prostate. RESULTS: A total of 300 men participated; 248 had MRI-visible lesions (mean [SD] age, 65.5 [7.7] years; 197 were white [79.4%]), and 52 were control participants (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [5.9] years; 39 were white [75%]). The overall CDR was 70% in the paired cohort group, achieved by combining systematic and targeted biopsy results. The CDR by systematic sampling was 15% in the group without MRI-visible lesions. In the paired-cohort group, CDRs varied from 47% (116 of 248 men) when using cognitive fusion biopsy alone, to approximately 60% when using systematic biopsy (149 of 248 men) or either fusion method alone (154 of 248 men), to 70% (174 of 248 men) when combining systematic and targeted biopsy. Discordance of tumor locations suggests that the different biopsy methods detect different tumors. Thus, combining targeting and systematic sampling provide greatest sensitivity for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. For all biopsy methods, the Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System version 2 grade and prostate-specific antigen density were directly associated with CDRs, and prostate volume was inversely associated. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: An MRI-visible lesion in men undergoing first-time prostate biopsy identifies those with a heightened risk of clinically significant prostate cancer. Combining targeted and systematic biopsy offers the best chances of detecting the cancer.

Understanding the imaging and clinical features of hepatocellular adenomas and their unique genotypic subtypes is important in the detection, characterization, and monitoring of these tumors.