Long‐Term Risk of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Biopsy‐Negative Patients With Baseline Biparametric Prostate MRI

Abstract

<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The long-term prevalence of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in patients with initial negative prostate biopsy is unknown.</p><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To investigate the rate of csPCa of men with initial negative biopsy.</p><h3>Study Type</h3><p>Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.</p><h3>Population</h3><p>A total of 197 men (mean age 63 years [SD ±6.98, range 29–79]) without csPCa on initial biopsy and available baseline biparametric prostate MRI (bpMRI).</p><h3>Field Strength/Sequence</h3><p>3.0 T, turbo spin-echo T2-weighted (axial and sagittal) and three sets of diffusion-weighted imaging using single-shot spin-echo planar imaging (5 b-values 0–500 seconds/mm²; 2 b-values 0 and 1500 seconds/mm², and 2 b-values 0 and 2000 seconds/mm²).</p><h3>Assessment</h3><p>BpMRI was read using Prostate Imaging Reporting Data System (PI-RADS) v2.1. Systematic or targeted biopsy results served as reference standard.</p><h3>Statistical Tests</h3><p>Continuous variables were compared using Kruskal–Wallis rank sum test. Categorical variables were compared using either Fisher's exact test or Pearson's chi-square test. Uni- and multivariate regression odds ratios (95% confidence interval) were used to study factors affecting csPCa being diagnosed during follow-up. Time to diagnosis of csPCa is calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>Of 197 men, 74 (38%), 57 (29%), and 66 (34%) presented with PI-RADS 1–2, 3, and 4–5 findings in the baseline bpMRI. During the median follow-up of 52 months, 8.1%, 5.3%, and 18.2% of these men were diagnosed with csPCa, respectively. Baseline PI-RADS finding was the only factor that associated with csPCa found during the follow-up.</p><h3>Data Conclusion</h3><p>Baseline bpMRI with PI-RADS scores 1–3 and initial biopsies negative of csPCa had low rate of csPCa during follow-up, which supports more conservative follow-up for them but further research with longer follow-up is warranted.</p><h3>Level of Evidence</h3><p>3</p><h3>Technical Efficacy</h3><p>Stage 2<br></p></div>