The utility of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer diagnosis in the Australian setting. Issue 6 (4th June 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Tay, Jia Ying Isaac; Chow, Ken; Gavin, Dominic J.; Mertens, Evie; Howard, Nicholas; Thomas, Benjamin; Dundee, Philip; Peters, Justin; Simkin, Paul; Kranz, Sevastjan; Finlay, Moira; Heinze, Stefan; Kelly, Brian; Costello, Anthony; Corcoran, Niall
• Is Part Of: BJUI Compass. Volume 2:Issue 6(2021)
• Page Start: 377
• Page End: 384
• Publication Date: 2021-06-04
• Subjects: active surveillance -- biopsy -- ERSPC risk calculator -- multiparametric magenetic resonance imaging -- prostate Cancer; Genitourinary organs -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Genitourinary organs -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Urology -- Periodicals; 616.6
• DOI: 10.1002/bco2.99
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2688-4526

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: To investigate the utility of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) for prostate cancer diagnosis in the Australian setting. Patients and methods: All consecutive men who underwent a prostate biopsy (transperineal or transrectal) at Royal Melbourne Hospital between July 2017 to June 2019 were included, totalling 332 patients. Data were retrospectively collected from patient records. For each individual patient, the risk of prostate cancer diagnosis at biopsy based on clinical findings was determined using the European Randomized study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculator, with and without incorporation of MRI findings. Results: MRI has good diagnostic accuracy for clinically significant prostate cancer. A PI‐RADS 2 or lower finding has a negative predictive value of 96% for clinically significant cancer, and a PI‐RADS 3, 4 or 5 MRI scan has a sensitivity of 93%. However, MRI has a false negative rate of 6.5% overall for clinically significant prostate cancers. Pre‐ biopsy MRI may reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies, as up to 50.0% of negative or ISUP1 biopsies have MRI PI‐RADS 2 or lower. Incorporation of MRI findings into the ERSPC calculator improved predictive performance for all prostate cancer diagnoses (AUC 0.77 vs 0.71, P = .04), but not for clinically significant cancer (AUC 0.89 vs 0.87, P = .37). Conclusion: MRI has good sensitivity and negative predictive value for clinically significant prostate cancers. It is useful as a pre‐biopsy tool and can be used to significantly reduce the number of unnecessary prostate biopsies. However, MRI does not significantly improve risk predictions for clinically significant cancers when incorporated into the ERSPC risk calculator.