Complications and Adverse Events of Three Magnetic Resonance Imaging-based Target Biopsy Techniques in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer Among Men with Prior Negative Biopsies: Results from the FUTURE Trial, a Multicentre Randomised Controlled Trial

Abstract

Background: Three techniques of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based targeted biopsy (TB) of the prostate exist. There is no superiority regarding diagnostic efficacy of prostate cancer (PCa) detection.

Objective: To compare adverse events (AEs) among three TB techniques and to evaluate the effect on urinary and erectile function.

Design, setting, and participants: Post hoc analysis of a multicentre randomised controlled trial among men with negative systematic biopsy (SB) and suspicion of PCa.

Intervention: In 234 patients, 3-T multiparametric MRI demonstrated PIRADS≥ 3 lesions, and patients were randomised 1:1:1 for TB: transrectal in-bore MRI TB (MRI-TB), transperineal MRI-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion TB (FUS-TB), and transrectal cognitive TRUS TB (COG-TB).

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: AEs (Clavien-Dindo) were compared using Pearson chi-square test. Univariate logistic regression tests were performed for the number of cores, biopsy approach, and usage of anticoagulants. The participants filled in baseline and 30-d postbiopsy International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) questionnaires. The delta between measurements was compared using one-way analysis of variance.

Results and limitations: There were significant differences in minor AEs: 53% in MRI-TB, 71% in FUS-TB, and 85% in COG-TB (p < 0.001). The number of cores was associated with AEs (odds ratio [OR] 1.11 per extra biopsy [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.06-1.17, p < 0.001]). Anticoagulants were not associated with bleeding complications (OR 1.24 [95% CI 0.66-2.35, p = 0.5]). Transrectal approach (MRI-TB + COG-TB) increased the risk of any AE (OR 2.54 [95% CI 1.16-5.77, p < 0.05]) and nonsignificantly increased the risk of urinary tract infections (OR 3.69 [95% CI 0.46-168.4, p = 0.3]). Biopsy did not impact urinary (ΔIPSS 0.3, p = 0.1) and erectile function (ΔIIEF-5 -0.4, p = 0.5). The main limitation was that additional SB was performed in FUS-TB and COG-TB, and was omitted in MRI-TB, making comparison difficult.

Conclusions: There was a significant difference in minor AEs among groups. An increase in the number of cores increased the overall risk of AEs. A low AE occurrence in MRI-TB was likely caused by the omission of SB. Prostate biopsy did not impact self-reported urinary and erectile functions.

Patient summary: In this study, we compared the complication rates of three techniques of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based targeted biopsy of the prostate. We found a significant difference in the occurrence of minor complication rates among three groups in favour of transrectal in-bore MRI targeted biopsy, likely caused by the omission of additional systematic biopsy in this group.

Keywords: Complications; Erectile dysfunction; Lower urinary tract symptoms; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostate biopsy; Targeted biopsy.