Retrospective review finds mp-MRI useful for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer, suggesting fewer unnecessary biopsies.
Purpose: To determine whether a confirmatory biopsy is necessary after multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) to identify clinically significant prostate cancer in patients with findings of ASAP on biopsy. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients diagnosed with atypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP) on systematic transperineal prostate needle biopsy between January 2017 and July 2024. Patients then underwent a confirmatory biopsy, with or without prebiopsy mp-MRI of the prostate. Patients with prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADs) lesions ≥ 3 also underwent a concurrent targeted biopsy. The cancer detection rate was determined for patient cohorts based on their mp-MRI findings. Results: A total of 155 patients were diagnosed with ASAP, and 36 underwent confirmatory biopsy after a median of 18 months. Clinically significant prostate cancer (grade group ≥ 2) was diagnosed more frequently in patients with preconfirmatory biopsy mp-MRI showing PI-RADs ≥ 3 compared with patients without an mp-MRI study (OR 20.0; CI 1.9-213.8; P = .009). Conversely, the risk of detecting clinically significant prostate cancer was equivocal in patients with preconfirmatory biopsy mp-MRI showing PI-RADs ≤ 2 (OR 0.83; CI 0.05-15.07; P = .45). A secondary analysis was performed evaluating mp-MRI scores and PSAD (prostate-specific antigen density), which found that no patients with mp-MRI showing PI-RADs ≤ 2 and a PSAD ≤ 0.15 had clinically significant prostate cancer on confirmatory biopsy. Conclusion: Our data demonstrate that diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer at confirmatory biopsy is relatively high when mp-MRI shows PI-RADs ≥ 3. The data suggest that mp-MRI, especially when used in conjunction with PSAD, is a useful adjunct to identify who may safely avoid confirmatory biopsy and potentially reduce the number of unnecessary prostate biopsies in this setting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zopp et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: