OBJECTIVE: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has improved the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), and microultrasound (micro-US) shows promise in enhancing detection rates. We compared mpMRI-guided targeted biopsy (MTBx) and micro-US-guided targeted biopsy (micro-US-TBx) in biopsy-naïve patients with discordant lesions at micro-US and mpMRI to detect csPCa (grade group ≥2) and clinically insignificant PCa (ciPCa; grade group 1) and assessed the role of nontargeted systematic biopsy (SBx).
METHODS: We analyzed 178 biopsy-naive men with suspected PCa and discordant lesions at mpMRI and micro-US. All patients underwent mpMRI followed by micro-US, the latter being performed immediately before the biopsy. Imaging findings were interpreted blindly, followed by targeted and SBx. Median age was 63 years (IQR, 57-70), median prostate-specific antigen level was 7 ng/mL (IQR, 5-9 ng/mL), and median prostate volume was 49 cm^3 (IQR, 35-64 cm^3). Overall, 86/178 (48%) patients were diagnosed with PCa, 51/178 (29%) with csPCa.
RESULTS: Micro-USTBx detected csPCa in 36/178 men (20%; 95% CI: 26-46), and MTBx detected csPCa in 28/178 men (16%; 95% CI: 36-50), resulting in a -8% difference (95% CI: -10, 4; P = 0.022) and a relative detection rate of 0.043. Micro-USTBx detected ciPCa in 9/178 men (5%; 95% CI: 3, 15), while MTBx detected ciPCa in 12/178 men (7%; 95% CI: 5, 20), resulting in a -3% difference (95% CI: -2 to 4; P = 0.2) and a relative detection rate of 0.1. SBx detected ciPCa in 29 (16%) men. mpMRI plus micro-US detected csPCa in 51/178 men, with no additional cases with the addition of SBx. Similarly, MTBx plus micro-USTBx plus SBx detected ciPCa in 35/178 men (20%; 95% CI: 18, 37) compared to 9 (5%) in the micro-US pathway (P = 0.002) and 14/178 (8%; 95% CI: 6, 26) in the mpMRI plus micro-US pathway (P = 0.004).
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, a combined micro-US/mpMRI approach could characterize primary disease in biopsy-naïve patients with discordant lesions, potentially avoiding SBx. Further studies are needed to validate our findings and assess micro-US\'s role in reducing unnecessary biopsies.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of a novel fusion template \"reduced six-core systemic template and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound (mpMRI/TRUS) fusion targeted biopsy\" (TBx+6c), with mpMRI/TRUS fusion-targeted biopsy and 12-core systematic biopsy template (TBx+12c) in the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa).
METHODS: This is an institutional review board approved single-center observational study involving adult men undergoing fusion-targeted biopsies for the diagnosis of PCa. Patients were sorted into cohorts of TBx+6c or TBx+12c based on the systematic biopsy template used. The study\'s main objective was to determine the cancer detection rate (CDR) for overall PCa and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) and the secondary objectives were to compare complication rates and functional outcome differences between the cohort.
RESULTS: A total of 204 patients met study\'s inclusion criteria. TBx+6c group had 120 patients, while TBx+12c cohort had 84 patients. The groups had similar baseline characteristics and overall CDR in the TBx+6c cohort was 71.7% versus 79.8%, compared to the TBx+12c (p = 0.18) whereas, the csPCa detection rate in the TBx+6c group was 50.8% versus 54.8% in the TBx+12c group (p = 0.5). TBx+6c cohort had lower overall complication rate of 3% versus 13%, (p = 0.01) and ≥ grade 2 complication rates (1 (1%) vs. 3(4%), p = 0.03) compared to the TBx+12c cohort. There were no differences in IIEF-5 (p = 0.5) or IPSS (p = 0.1) scores at baseline and 2-weeks and 6-weeks post-biopsy.
CONCLUSIONS: TBx+6c cohort, when compared to the TBx+12c cohort, demonstrated comparable diagnostic performance along with similar functional outcomes and lower complication rates. These results suggest the importance of further exploring the clinical implications of adopting a TBx+6c schema for PCa diagnosis in comparison to the widely used TBx+12c schema through a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the detection rates of systematic, targeted and combined cores at biopsy according to tumor positions in biopsy-naïve patients.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a single-center patient cohort (n = 501) that underwent transrectal prostate biopsy between January 2017 and December 2019 was performed. Multi-parametric MRI was executed as a prebiopsy investigation. Biopsy protocol included, for each patient, 12 systematic cores plus 3 to 5 targeted cores per lesion identified at the mpMRI. Pearson and McNemar chi-squared tests were used for statistical analysis to compare tumor location-related detection rates of systematic, targeted and combined (systematic + targeted) cores at biopsy.
RESULTS: Median age of patients was 70 years (IQR 62-72), with a median PSA of 8.5 ng/ml (IQR 5.7-15.6). Positive biopsies were obtained in 67.7% of cases. Overall, targeted cores obtained higher detection rates compared to systematic cores (54.3% vs. 43.1%, p < 0.0001). Differences in detection rates were, however, higher for tumors located at the apex (61.1% vs. 26.3%, p < 0.05) and anteriorly (44.4% vs. 19.3%, p < 0.05). Targeted cores similarly obtained higher detection rates in the posterior zone of the prostate gland for clinically significant prostate cancer. A poor agreement was reported between targeted and systematic cores for the apex and anterior zone of the prostate with, respectively κ = 0.028 and κ = -0.018.
CONCLUSIONS: A combined approach of targeted and systematic biopsy delivers the highest detection rate in prostate cancer (PCa). The location of the tumor could however greatly influence overall detection rates, indicating the possibility to omit (as for the base or posterior zone of the gland) or add (as for the apex or anterior zone of the gland) further targeted cores.

BACKGROUND: A remarkable paradigm shift has emerged regarding the preferred prostate biopsy approach, favoring the transperineal (TP) over the transrectal (TR) approach due to the reduced risk of severe urinary tract infections. However, its impact on the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) remains unclear.
METHODS: We relied on a prospectively maintained tertiary care database to identify patients who underwent either TP or TR prostate biopsy between 01/2014 and 12/2023. Of those, only patients with suspicious magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) PIRADS lesions (Likert-scale: 3,4,5) received MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies. Detection rates of csPCa (International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] ≥ 2) were compared between biopsy approach (TP vs. TR) according to index lesion. Subsequently, uni- and multivariable logistic regression models were applied to investigate the predictive status of the biopsy approach within each subcohort.
RESULTS: Of 2063 patients, 1118 (54%) underwent combined MRI-guided and systematic prostate biopsy and were included in the final cohort. Of those, 127 (11%) and 991 (89%) underwent TP vs. TR. CsPCa rates, regardless of differences in patients\' demographics and distribution of index PIRDAS lesions, did not differ statistically significantly and were 51 vs. 52%, respectively (p = 0.8). CsPCa detection rates for PIRDAS-3, PIRADS-4 and PIRADS-5 did not differ and were 24 vs. 23%, 48 vs. 51% and 72 vs. 76% for PIRADS-3, PIRADS-4 and PIRADS-5 subgroups for TP vs. TR, respectively (all p ≥ 0.9) Conclusions: The current results support the available data indicating that TP biopsy approach is comparable to transrectal biopsy approach regarding csPCa detection rates.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasound targeted biopsy has frequently been used together with a 12-core systematic biopsy for prostate cancer screening in the past few years. However, the efficacy of targeted biopsy compared to systematic biopsy, as well as its clinical-histologic correlation, has been assessed by a limited number of studies and is further investigated in this study.
METHODS: We collected 960 cases with both targeted and systematic prostate biopsies from 04/2019 to 04/2022 (Table 1). We compared cancer detection rates between targeted and systematic prostate biopsies in different grade groups. Correlations with the size of prostate lesions, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, and Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scale were also analyzed for each of these biopsy methods.
RESULTS: Among the 960 men who underwent targeted biopsy with systematic biopsy, prostatic adenocarcinoma was diagnosed in 652 (67.9%) cases. 489 (50.9%) cases were diagnosed by targeted biopsy and 576 (60.0%) cases were diagnosed by systematic biopsy. In the 384 cases diagnosed negative by systematic biopsy, targeted biopsy identified cancer in 76 (8%) cases. Systematic biopsy was able to detect 163 cancer cases that were missed by targeted biopsy. Systematic biopsy detected more grade group 1 cancers compared to targeted biopsy. However, for higher grade cancers, the differences between the cancer detection rates of targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy became negligible. Targeted biopsy upgraded the grade group categorized by systematic biopsy in several cases (3.8%, 7.0%, 2.6%, 1.1% and 0.9% in Grade Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 respectively). Targeted biopsy was more likely to detect cancer in larger lesions (13.17 mm VS 11.41 mm, P=0.0056) and for higher PI-RADS scales (4.19 VS 3.68, P<0.0001). The cancers detected by targeted biopsy also had higher PSA levels (10.38 ng/ml VS 6.39 ng/ml, P=0.0026).
CONCLUSIONS: Targeted biopsy with systematic biopsy improved cancer detection rate compared to systematic biopsy alone. Targeted biopsy is not more sensitive for grade groups 1, 4, or 5 cancers but is as sensitive as systematic biopsy for detecting grade group 2 and 3 cancers. Targeted biopsy is more effective at detecting cancers when patients have larger lesions, higher PI-RADS scales, and higher PSA levels.

OBJECTIVE: Although targeted biopsies (TBx) are associated with improved disease assessment, concerns have been raised regarding the risk of prostate cancer (PCa) overgrading due to more accurate biopsy core deployment in the index lesion.
METHODS: We identified 1672 patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) with a positive mpMRI and ISUP ≥ 2 PCa detected via systematic biopsy (SBx) plus TBx. We compared downgrading rates at RP (ISUP 4-5, 3, and 2 at biopsy, to a lower ISUP) for PCa detected via SBx only (group 1), via TBx only (group 2), and eventually for PCa detected with the same ISUP 2-5 at both SBx and TBx (group 3), using multivariable logistic regression models (MVA).
RESULTS: Overall, 12 vs 14 vs 6% (n = 176 vs 227 vs 96) downgrading rates were recorded in group 1 vs group 2 vs group 3, respectively (p < 0.001). At MVA, group 2 was more likely to be downgraded (OR 1.26, p = 0.04), as compared to group 1. Conversely, group 3 was less likely to be downgraded at RP (OR 0.42, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Downgrading rates are highest when PCa is present in TBx only and, especially when the highest grade PCa is diagnosed by TBx cores only. Conversely, downgrading rates are lowest when PCa is identified with the same ISUP through both SBx and TBx. The presence of clinically significant disease at SBx + TBx may indicate a more reliable assessment of the disease at the time of biopsy potentially reducing the risk of downgrading at final pathology.

OBJECTIVE: This study intends to examine the anticipatory power of clinical and radiological parameters in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in patients demonstrating Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 lesions.
METHODS: This was a retrospective study. The study included participation from 453 patients at the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, sampled between September 2017 through August 2022. Each patient underwent a routine 12-core prostate biopsy followed by a 2 to 5 core fusion-targeted biopsy. We utilized both univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses to identify the parameters that have a correlation with clinically significant prostate cancer. The predictive ability of these parameters was assessed using the receiver operating characteristic curve, leading to the creation of a nomogram.
RESULTS: Clinically significant prostate cancer was detected in 68 out of 453 patients with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 lesions (15.01%). Among Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3a and 3b patients, 4.78% (3.09% of the total) and 33.75% (11.92% of the total), respectively, had clinically significant prostate cancer. Systematic biopsy improved prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer detection rates by 7.72% and 3.09%, respectively, compared to targeted biopsy. Without systematic biopsy, there would be an undetected rate of 15% for prostate cancer and 8.13% for clinically significant prostate cancer in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3b patients. Several clinical parameters, including age, prostate-specific antigen density, lesion volume, apparent diffusion coefficient, and digital rectal examination, were statistically significant in the logistic regression analysis for clinically significant prostate cancer. The individual diagnostic accuracies of these parameters for clinically significant prostate cancer were 0.648, 0.645, 0.75, 0.763, and 0.7, respectively, but their combined accuracy improved to 0.866. A well-fit nomogram based on the identified risk factors was constructed (χ2 = 10.254, P = .248).
CONCLUSIONS: The combination of age, prostate-specific antigen density, lesion volume, apparent diffusion coefficient, and digital rectal examination presented a higher diagnostic value for clinically significant prostate cancer than any single parameter in patients with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 lesions. Systematic biopsy proved crucial for biopsy-naive patients with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3 lesions and should not be omitted.

OBJECTIVE: Prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) with subsequent targeted biopsy of suspicious lesions has a critical role in the diagnostic workup of prostate cancer. The objective was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of systematic biopsies, targeted biopsies, and the combination of both in prostate cancer detection.
METHODS: From January 1, 2013 to June 1, 2022, biopsy-naïve and prior biopsy-negative patients who underwent both systematic and targeted biopsies were included. MRIs were evaluated according to PI-RADS with biopsy threshold set at PI-RADS ≥3. Systematic biopsies consisted of 8-12 cores, based on prostate volume. Overall prostate cancer and clinically significant cancer (Gleason Score ≥3 + 4) detection rates were stratified based on PI-RADS and location within the prostate, and compared between biopsy types using McNemar test.
RESULTS: Among 867 patients, 615 had prostate cancer, with 434 clinically significant cases. Overall detection rates were: PI-RADS 3 48%, PI-RADS 4 72%, and PI-RADS 5 90%. Detection rates for clinically significant cancer were 21%, 53%, and 72%, respectively. The combination of biopsy methods was most accurate in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (P < .001). Targeted biopsies alone detected more clinically significant prostate cancer than systematic biopsies alone (43.1% vs 40.3%, P = .046). For posterior PI-RADS 5 lesions, no statistically significant difference was found between all biopsy methods.
CONCLUSIONS: In the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, the combination of systematic and targeted biopsies proves most effective. Targeted biopsies rarely missed significant cancer for posterior PI-RADS 5 lesions, suggesting systematic biopsies could be reserved for instances where targeted biopsy results are negative.
CONCLUSIONS: This study emphasizes on the efficacy of mpMRI and targeted biopsies in suspected prostate cancer in real-world clinical context. For PI-RADS 5 lesions, systematic biopsies provide limited clinical benefit and may only be necessary when targeted biopsy results are negative.

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI)-based targeted biopsy has shown to be beneficial in detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer (csPCa) and avoiding diagnosis of Non-csPCa (ncsPCa); however, its role in the treatment of biopsy-naïve patients is still under discussion.
METHODS: After identifying predictors for the diagnosis of csPCa via Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis (MLRA), a propensity-score (1:1 nearest neighbor) matched comparison was performed between a Systematic-Only Biopsy (SOB) cohort and a mpMRI-based Combined (systematic + targeted) Biopsy (CB) cohort from two tertiary urologic centers (SOB: Department of Urology, University General Hospital of Heraklion, University of Crete, School of Medicine, Heraklion, Crete, Greece; CB: LKH Hall in Tirol, Austria). Only biopsy-naïve patients were included in the study. The study period for the included patients was from February 2018 to July 2023 for the SOB group and from July 2017 to June 2023 for the CB group. The primary outcome was the diagnosis of csPCa (≥ISUP 2); secondary outcomes were overall cancer detection, the added value of targeted biopsy in csPCa detection, and the reduction in ncsPCa diagnosis with CB compared to SOB. To estimate the Average Treatment effect of the Treated groups (ATT), cluster-robust standard errors were used to perform g-computation in the matched sample. p-values < 0.05 with a two-sided 95% confidence interval were considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: Matching achieved well-balanced groups (each n = 140 for CB and SOB). In the CB group, 65/140 (46.4%) patients were diagnosed with csPCa compared to 44/140 (31.4%) in the SOB group (RR 1.48, 95%-CI: 1.09-2.0, p = 0.01). In the CB group, 4.3% (6/140) and 1.4% (2/140) of csPCa cases were detected with targeted-only and systematic-only biopsy cores, respectively. In the CB group, 22/140 (15.7%) patients were diagnosed with ncsPCa compared to 33/140 (23.6%) in the SOB group (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.41-1.08, p = 0.1). When comparing SOB to CB (ATT), the marginal OR was 0.56 (95% CI: 0.38-0.82, p = 0.003) for the diagnosis of csPCa and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.47-1.05, p = 0.085) for the diagnosis of overall cancer (≥ISUP 1).
CONCLUSIONS: The CB approach was superior to the SOB approach in detecting csPCa, while no additional detection of ncsPCa was seen. Our results support the application of mpMRI for biopsy-naïve patients with suspicions of prostate cancer.

UNASSIGNED: A combined approach of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy (TBx) and bilateral systematic biopsy (SBx) is advised in patients who have an increased risk of prostate cancer (PCa). The diagnostic gain of SBx in detecting PCa for treatment planning of patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is unknown. This study aims to determine the impact of omitting contralateral SBx on the surgical planning of patients undergoing RARP in terms of nerve-sparing surgery (NSS) and extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND).
UNASSIGNED: Case files from 80 men with biopsy-proven PCa were studied. All men had a unilateral suspicious lesion on MRI, and underwent TBx and bilateral SBx. Case files were presented to five urologists for the surgical planning of RARP. Each case file was presented randomly using two different sets of information: (1) results of TBx + bilateral SBx, and (2) results of TBx + ipsilateral SBx. The urologists assessed whether they would perform NSS and/or ePLND.
UNASSIGNED: A change in the surgical plan concerning NSS on the contralateral side was observed in 9.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.4-12.2) of cases. Additionally, the indication for ePLND changed in 5.3% (95% CI 3.3-7.9) of cases. Interobserver agreement based on Fleiss\' kappa changed from 0.44 to 0.15 for the indication of NSS and from 0.84 to 0.83 for the indication of ePLND.
UNASSIGNED: In our series, the diagnostic information obtained from contralateral SBx has limited impact on the surgical planning of patients with a unilateral suspicious lesion on MRI scheduled to undergo RARP.
UNASSIGNED: In patients with one-sided prostate cancer on magnetic resonance imaging, omitting biopsies on the other side rarely changed the surgical plan with respect to nerve-sparing surgery and the indication to perform extended lymph node dissection.