You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Localized: Active Surveillance I (MP23)1 Apr 2020MP23-15 MRI FUSION BIOPSY IN ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE – A TEMPORAL ANALYSIS OF THE LARGEST DATASET Brijesh Patel*, Pierce Massie, John Ogunkeye, Eiftu Haile, Paul Yonover, Justin Cohen, and Christopher Coogan Brijesh Patel*Brijesh Patel* More articles by this author , Pierce MassiePierce Massie More articles by this author , John OgunkeyeJohn Ogunkeye More articles by this author , Eiftu HaileEiftu Haile More articles by this author , Paul YonoverPaul Yonover More articles by this author , Justin CohenJustin Cohen More articles by this author , and Christopher CooganChristopher Coogan More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000856.015AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) fusion biopsy has been commonly utilized in the management of patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance (AS) for more than 5 years. A multitude of studies have quantified the accuracy of this modality albeit with small cohorts over short time frames. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all patients on active surveillance for management of prostate cancer in a community-and-academic integrated urology practice. All biopsies were performed in standardized fashion with 12 core systematic biopsy (SB) followed by a targeted biopsy (TB) of at least 3 cores of a region of interest identified on mpMRI. RESULTS: 588 active surveillance biopsies were performed from January 2015 through September 2019. 120 (20.4%) did not detect prostate cancer on either SB or TB. 115 (19.6%) detected prostate cancer on RB but not on TB, while 72 (12.2%) identified cancer on TB but not on SB. Among those 72, 52 (72.2%) were Grade Group (GG) 1 disease, while 20 (27.7%) were >GG2. 284 (48.3%) identified cancer on both TB and SB, of which 95 (16.2%) demonstrated higher grade disease on TB compared to SB, while 97 (16.5%) found higher grade disease on SB compared to TB. Over this time frame, mpMRI fusion biopsy utilization grew at an average of 23.2% annually. 137 biopsies in 2019 reflects the first nine months of the year only. A further breakdown of results is provided in Table 1. CONCLUSIONS: In our series, in 115 biopsies (19.6%) the TB identified potentially actionable data that could impact the decision to remain on active surveillance or pursue curative intent. Given these findings, mpMRI appears to be quite useful in finding occult clinical significant prostate cancer and may become a standard of care in active surveillance protocols. Source of Funding: None © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 203Issue Supplement 4April 2020Page: e344-e344 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Brijesh Patel* More articles by this author Pierce Massie More articles by this author John Ogunkeye More articles by this author Eiftu Haile More articles by this author Paul Yonover More articles by this author Justin Cohen More articles by this author Christopher Coogan More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Localized: Active Surveillance I (MP23)1 Apr 2020Prostate Cancer: Localized: Active Surveillance I (MP23) View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000856AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 203Issue Supplement 4April 2020 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...