Precision-guidance vs Systematic Sampling: Optimizing Biopsy Assessment of Secondary Prostate Cancer Suspicious Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Lesions.

Purpose: We assessed the diagnostic yield of consecutive transperineal targeted biopsy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging index lesion and secondary lesion and additive systematic biopsy in patients who received combined targeted biopsy+systematic biopsy of prostate.

Materials And Methods: Of 1,467 patients with targeted biopsy+systematic biopsy, analyses were restricted to 571 patients with index lesion+secondary lesion, Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score ≥3. Index lesion was defined as having the greatest Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score and/or lesion volume as opposed to secondary lesion. We retrospectively compared clinically significant prostate cancer rates (ie, Gleason Grade Group ≥2) between index lesion+secondary lesion and index lesion+secondary lesion+systematic biopsy. Subgroup analyses in men with ipsilateral index lesion+secondary lesion focused on contralateral systematic biopsy. Multivariable logistic regression analyses to predict any clinically significant prostate cancer included age, previous biopsies, prostate specific antigen density, respective index lesion/secondary lesion volumes, side relation, Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System strata, and number of targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy cores.

Results: Clinically significant prostate cancer rates for index lesion+secondary lesion vs index lesion+secondary lesion+systematic biopsy were 38% vs 42% ( = .2) at expense of significantly higher median number of biopsy cores (9 vs 25, < .001). In the subgroup with ipsilateral index lesion+secondary lesion (n = 236), contralateral systematic biopsy detected clinically significant prostate cancer in 17%. In the narrower subgroup with ipsilateral index lesion+secondary lesion (n = 131) without any clinically significant prostate cancer, contralateral systematic biopsy detected clinically significant prostate cancer in 3.8%. Multivariable logistic regression analyses confirmed contralateral systematic biopsy as independent predictor, but performed similarly without systematic biopsy information (area under the curve 87.1% vs 86.6%).

Conclusions: Targeted biopsy of secondary lesion should be included in targeted biopsy protocols due to added diagnostic information. However, for targeted biopsy of index lesion+secondary lesion additional systematic biopsy is of limited informative value in terms of overall clinically significant prostate cancer detection. However, when index lesion+secondary lesion are ipsilateral, contralateral systematic biopsy should be recommended for purpose of prostate lobe information. Our results indicate great potential to reduce systematic biopsy cores and associated potential morbidity, and warrant prospective evaluation.