Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Clinical Research

Changes in prostate cancer detection rate of MRI-TRUS fusion vs systematic biopsy over time: evidence of a learning curve

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 20, pages 436–441 (2017)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background:

To determine the effect of urologist and radiologist learning curves and changes in MRI-TRUS fusion platform during 9 years of NCI’s experience with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)/TRUS fusion biopsy.

Methods:

A prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing mpMRI followed by fusion biopsy (Fbx) and systematic biopsy (Sbx) from 2007 to 2016 was reviewed. The patients were stratified based on the timing of first biopsy. Cohort 1 (7/2007−12/2010) accounted for learning curve. Cohort 2 (1/2011–5/2013) and cohort 3 (5/2013–4/2016) included patients biopsied prior to and after debut of a new software platform, respectively. Clinically significant (CS) disease was defined as Gleason 7 (3+4) or higher. McNemar’s test compared cancer detection rates (CDRs) of Sbx and Fbx between time periods.

Results:

1528 patients were included in the study with 230, 537 and 761 patients included in three respective cohorts. Median age (interquartile range) was 61.0 (±9.0), 62.0 (±7.3), and 64.0 (±11.0) years in three cohorts, respectively (P<0.001). Fbx and Sbx had comparable CS CDR in cohort 1 (24.8 vs 22.2%, P=0.377). Fbx detected significantly more CS disease compared to Sbx in the following two periods (cohort 2: 31.5 vs 25.0%, P=0.001; cohort 3: 36.4 vs 30.3%, P<0.001) and detected significantly less low risk disease in the same period (cohort 2: 14.5 vs 19.6%, P<0.001; cohort 3: 12.6 vs 16.7%, P<0.001). Even after multivariate adjustment with age, PSA, race, clinical stage and MRI suspicion score, Fbx CS cancer detection increased in successive cohorts (cohort 2: OR 2.23, P=0.043; cohort 3: OR 2.92, P=0.007).

Conclusions:

In the past 9 years, there has been significant improvement in the accuracy of Fbx. Our results show that after an early learning period, Fbx detected higher rates of CS cancer and lower rates of clinically insignificant cancer than Sbx. Software advances allowed for even greater detection of CS disease.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lecornet E, Ahmed HU, Hu Y, Moore CM, Nevoux P, Barratt D et al. The accuracy of different biopsy strategies for the detection of clinically important prostate cancer: a computer simulation. J Urol 2012; 188: 974–980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kvale R, Moller B, Wahlqvist R, Fossa SD, Berner A, Busch C et al. Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population-based study. BJU Int 2009; 103: 1647–1654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George AK, Rothwax J, Shakir N et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 2015; 313: 390–397.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Moore CM, Robertson NL, Arsanious N, Middleton T, Villers A, Klotz L et al. Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2013; 63: 125–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kuru TH, Roethke MC, Seidenader J, Simpfendorfer T, Boxler S, Alammar K et al. Critical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging targeted, transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal fusion biopsy for detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 2013; 190: 1380–1386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bjurlin MA, Mendhiratta N, Wysock JS, Taneja SS . Multiparametric MRI and targeted prostate biopsy: improvements in cancer detection, localization, and risk assessment. Central Eur J Urol 2016; 69: 9–18.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Harris RD, Schned AR, Heaney JA . Staging of prostate cancer with endorectal MR imaging: lessons from a learning curve. Radiographics 1995; 15: 813–829 discussion 829–832.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Rosenkrantz AB, Ayoola A, Hoffman D, Khasgiwala A, Prabhu V, Smereka P et al. The learning curve in prostate MRI interpretation: self-directed learning versus continual reader feedback. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017; 208: W92–w100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rosenkrantz AB, Pujara AC, Taneja SS . Use of a quality improvement initiative to achieve consistent reporting of level of suspicion for tumor on multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016; 206: 1040–1044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Emberton M . Has magnetic resonance-guided biopsy of the prostate become the standard of care? Eur Urol 2013; 64: 720–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Greer MD, Choyke PL, Turkbey B . PI-RADSv2: How we do it. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017; 46: 11–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Yerram NK, Volkin D, Turkbey B, Nix J, Hoang AN, Vourganti S et al. Low suspicion lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging predict for the absence of high-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012; 110: E783–E788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 746–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Naing NN . Easy way to learn standardization: direct and indirect methods. Malays J Med Sci 2000; 7: 10–15.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Ramsay CR, Grant AM, Wallace SA, Garthwaite PH, Monk AF, Russell IT . Assessment of the learning curve in health technologies. A systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000; 16: 1095–1108.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Subramonian K, Muir G . The 'learning curve' in surgery: what is it, how do we measure it and can we influence it? BJU Int 2004; 93: 1173–1174.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Gold RH, Bassett LW, Widoff BE . Highlights from the history of mammography. Radiographics 1990; 10: 1111–1131.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Miglioretti DL, Gard CC, Carney PA, Onega TL, Buist DS, Sickles EA et al. When radiologists perform best: the learning curve in screening mammogram interpretation. Radiology 2009; 253: 632–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Volkin D, Turkbey B, Hoang AN, Rais-Bahrami S, Yerram N, Walton-Diaz A et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and subsequent MRI/ultrasonography fusion-guided biopsy increase the detection of anteriorly located prostate cancers. BJU Int 2014; 114: E43–E49.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kongnyuy M, Sidana A, George AK, Muthigi A, Iyer A, Fascelli M et al. The significance of anterior prostate lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in African-American men. Urol Oncol 2016; 34: e215–e221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gaziev G, Wadhwa K, Barrett T, Koo BC, Gallagher FA, Serrao E et al. Defining the learning curve for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate using MRI-transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) fusion-guided transperineal prostate biopsies as a validation tool. BJU Int 2016; 117: 80–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Buus S, Rylander S, Hokland S, Sondergaard CS, Pedersen EM, Tanderup K et al. Learning curve of MRI-based planning for high-dose-rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer. Brachytherapy 2016; 15: 426–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ou YC, Yang CK, Chang KS, Wang J, Hung SW, Tung MC et al. The surgical learning curve for robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience of a single surgeon with 500 cases in Taiwan, China. Asian J Androl 2014; 16: 728–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Atug F, Castle EP, Srivastav SK, Burgess SV, Thomas R, Davis R . Positive surgical margins in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: impact of learning curve on oncologic outcomes. Eur Urol 2006; 49: 866–871 discussion 871-862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ahlering TE, Eichel L, Edwards RA, Lee DI, Skarecky DW . Robotic radical prostatectomy: a technique to reduce pT2 positive margins. Urology 2004; 64: 1224–1228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Zorn KC, Wille MA, Thong AE, Katz MH, Shikanov SA, Razmaria A et al. Continued improvement of perioperative, pathological and continence outcomes during 700 robot-assisted radical prostatectomies. Can J Urol 2009; 16: 4742–4749.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Patel VR, Palmer KJ, Coughlin G, Samavedi S . Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: perioperative outcomes of 1500 cases. J Endourol 2008; 22: 2299–2305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Vickers AJ, Bianco FJ, Serio AM, Eastham JA, Schrag D, Klein EA et al. The surgical learning curve for prostate cancer control after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99: 1171–1177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Latchamsetty KC, Borden LS Jr, Porter CR, Lacrampe M, Vaughan M, Lin E et al. Experience improves staging accuracy of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: what is the learning curve? Can J Urol 2007; 14: 3429–3434.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Akin O, Riedl CC, Ishill NM, Moskowitz CS, Zhang J, Hricak H . Interactive dedicated training curriculum improves accuracy in the interpretation of MR imaging of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 2010; 20: 995–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Fleshner K, Carlsson SV, Roobol MJ . The effect of the USPSTF PSA screening recommendation on prostate cancer incidence patterns in the USA. Nat Rev Urol 2017; 14: 26–37.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. McGinley KF, McMahon GC, Brown GA . Impact of the US Preventive Services Task Force Grade D Recommendation: Assessment of Evaluations for elevated prostate-specific antigen and prostate biopsies in a large urology group practice following statement revision. Rev Urol 2015; 17: 171–177.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Banerji JS, Wolff EM, Massman JD 3rd, Odem-Davis K, Porter CR, Corman JM . Prostate needle biopsy outcomes in the era of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation against prostate specific antigen based screening. J Urol 2016; 195: 66–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Olsson C, Anderson A, Kapoor D . MP39-04 initial prostate cancer detection before and after United States Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation on prostate cancer screening. J Urol 195: e542.

  35. Rosenberg M, Crawford D, Newmark J, Steiner M . MP39-01 use of PSA screening guidelines among primary care physicians. J Urol 195: e541.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research, and the Center for Interventional Oncology. NIH and Philips Healthcare have a cooperative research and development agreement. NIH and Philips share intellectual property in the field. This research was also made possible through the NIH Medical Research Scholars Program, a public-private partnership supported jointly by the NIH and generous contributions to the Foundation for the NIH by the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (Grant #2014194), the American Association for Dental Research, the Colgate-Palmolive Company, Genentech, and other private donors. For a complete list, visit the foundation website at http://www.fnih.org.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

    B Calio, A Sidana, D Sugano, A Jain, M Maruf & P Pinto

  2. Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

    M Merino

  3. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

    S Gaur, P Choyke & B Turkbey

  4. Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute and Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

    S Xu, P Yan, J Kruecker & B Wood

Authors
  1. B Calio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A Sidana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D Sugano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S Gaur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A Jain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M Maruf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. S Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. P Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. J Kruecker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. M Merino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. P Choyke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. B Turkbey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. B Wood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. P Pinto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B Calio.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Calio, B., Sidana, A., Sugano, D. et al. Changes in prostate cancer detection rate of MRI-TRUS fusion vs systematic biopsy over time: evidence of a learning curve. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 20, 436–441 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2017.34

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2017.34

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links