Impact of Lesion Visibility on Transrectal Ultrasound on the Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer (Gleason Score 3 + 4 or Greater) with Transrectal Ultrasound-Magnetic Resonance Imaging Fusion Biopsy

Garcia-Reyes, K.; Nguyen, H.G.; Zagoria, R.J.; Shinohara, K.; Carroll, P.R.; Behr, S.C.; Westphalen, A.C.

Journal of Urology 199(3): 699-705


ISSN/ISBN: 1527-3792
PMID: 28941918
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.09.075
Accession: 059837257

Download citation:  

Article/Abstract emailed within 0-6 h
Payments are secure & encrypted
Powered by Stripe
Powered by PayPal

The purpose of this study was to estimate the impact of lesion visibility with transrectal ultrasound on the prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer with transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy. This HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) compliant, institutional review board approved, retrospective study was performed in 178 men who were 64.7 years old with prostate specific antigen 8.9 ng/ml. They underwent transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy from January 2013 to September 2016. Visible lesions on magnetic resonance imaging were assigned a PI-RADS™ (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System), version 2 score of 3 or greater. Transrectal ultrasound was positive when a hypoechoic lesion was identified. We used a 3-level, mixed effects logistic regression model to determine how transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging concordance predicted the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer. The diagnostic performance of the 2 methods was estimated using ROC curves. A total of 1,331 sextants were targeted by transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging fusion or systematic biopsies, of which 1,037 were negative, 183 were Gleason score 3 + 3 and 111 were Gleason score 3 + 4 or greater. Clinically significant prostate cancer was diagnosed by transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging alone at 20.5% and 19.7% of these locations, respectively. Men with positive imaging had higher odds of clinically significant prostate cancer than men without visible lesions regardless of modality (transrectal ultrasound OR 14.75, 95% CI 5.22-41.69, magnetic resonance imaging OR 12.27, 95% CI 6.39-23.58 and the 2 modalities OR 28.68, 95% CI 14.45-56.89, all p <0.001). The ROC AUC to detect clinically significant prostate cancer using the 2 methods (0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.89) was statistically greater than that of transrectal ultrasound alone (0.80, 95% CI 0.76-0.85, p = 0.001) and magnetic resonance imaging alone (0.83, 95% CI 0.79-0.87, p = 0.04). The sensitivity and specificity of transrectal ultrasound were 42.3% and 91.6%, and the sensitivity and specificity of magnetic resonance imaging were 62.2% and 84.1%, respectively. Lesion visibility on magnetic resonance imaging or transrectal ultrasound denotes a similar probability of clinically significant prostate cancer. This probability is greater when each examination is positive.