Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34433302›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of urology2022

Why Does Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Biopsy Miss Clinically Significant Cancer?

Cheyenne Williams, Michael Ahdoot, Michael A Daneshvar, Christian Hague, Andrew R Wilbur, Patrick T Gomella, Joanna Shih, Nabila Khondakar, Nitin Yerram, Sherif Mehralivand and 8 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Landmarks in the evolution of prostate biopsy.Nature reviews. Urology · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Cheyenne WilliamsUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Michael AhdootUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Michael A DaneshvarUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Christian HagueUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Andrew R WilburUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Patrick T GomellaUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Joanna ShihBiometric Research Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Nabila KhondakarUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Nitin YerramUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Sherif MehralivandMolecular Imaging Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Sandeep GurramUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Minhaj SiddiquiDirector of Urologic Oncology and Robotic Surgery, VA Medical Center, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland.
Paul PinskyDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Howard ParnesDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Maria MerinoTranslational Surgical Pathology Section, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Bradford WoodCenter for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, & Interventional Radiology, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Baris TurkbeyMolecular Imaging Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Peter A PintoUrologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.

Funding

Center for Interventional OncologyZIDBC011242 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI WOOD, BRADFORD J · 2009 to 2025
$18.7M
Prostate SectionZIABC011081 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI PINTO, PETER · 2009 to 2025
$15.2M
Translational Surgical PathologyZIESC000853 · NCI · DIVISION OF CLINICAL SCIENCES - NCI · PI MERINO, MARIA · 2009 to 2025
$4.3M
Imaging, image guided biopsy and treatment of prostate cancerZIABC012062 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI TÜRKBEY, BARIS · 2021 to 2025
$1.3M
Navigation Tools for Image Guided Minimally invasive TherapiesZIACL040011 · CLC · CLINICAL CENTER · PI WOOD, BRADFORD · 2009 to 2025
$0k
Interventional OncologyZIACL040015 · CLC · CLINICAL CENTER · PI WOOD, BRADFORD · 2009 to 2025
$0k
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA BC011081
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMultiple studies demonstrate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy detects more clinically significant cancer than systematic biopsy; however, some clinically significant cancers are detected by systematic biopsy only. While these events are rare, we sought to perform a retrospective analysis of these cases to ascertain the reasons that MRI-targeted biopsy missed clinically significant cancer which was subsequently detected on systematic prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND

methodsPatients were enrolled in a prospective study comparing cancer detection rates by transrectal MRI-targeted fusion biopsy and systematic 12-core biopsy. Patients with an elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA), abnormal digital rectal examination, or imaging findings concerning for prostate cancer underwent prostate MRI and subsequent MRI-targeted and systematic biopsy in the same setting. The subset of patients with grade group (GG) ≥3 cancer found on systematic biopsy and GG ≤2 cancer (or no cancer) on MRI-targeted biopsy was classified as MRI-targeted biopsy misses. A retrospective analysis of the MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy real-time screen captures determined the cause of MRI-targeted biopsy miss. Multivariable logistic regression analysis compared baseline characteristics of patients with MRI-targeted biopsy misses to GG-matched patients whose clinically significant cancer was detected by MRI-targeted biopsy.

resultsOver the study period of 2007 to 2019, 2,103 patients met study inclusion criteria and underwent combined MRI-targeted and systematic prostate biopsies. A total of 41 (1.9%) men were classified as MRI-targeted biopsy misses. Most MRI-targeted biopsy misses were due to errors in lesion targeting (21, 51.2%), followed by MRI-invisible lesions (17, 40.5%) and MRI lesions missed by the radiologist (3, 7.1%). On logistic regression analysis, lower Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS

conclusionsWhile uncommon, most MRI-targeted biopsy misses are due to errors in lesion targeting, which highlights the importance of accurate co-registration and targeting when using software-based fusion platforms. Additionally, some patients will harbor MRI-invisible lesions which are untargetable by MRI-targeted platforms. The presence of a low PI-RADS score despite a high PSA is suggestive of harboring an MRI-invisible lesion.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingMissed DiagnosisAgedHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMaleMiddle AgedProstateProstatic NeoplasmsRetrospective Studiesbiopsydiagnosismultiparametric magnetic resonance imagingprostatic neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID34433302
PMCPMC8665000

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.