Predictors of prostate cancer cetection in MRI PI-RADS 3 lesions – Reality of a terciary center

Introduction and objectives: The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score reports the likelihood of a clinically significant prostate cancer (CsPCa) based on various multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) characteristics. The PI-RADS category 3 is an intermediate status, with an equivocal risk of malignancy. The PSA density (PSAD) has been proposed as a tool to facilitate biopsy decisions on PI-RADS category 3 lesions. The objective of this study is to determine the frequency of CsPCa, assess the diagnostic value of targeted biopsy and identify clinical predictors to improve the CsPCa detection rate in PI-RADS category 3 lesions. Methods: Between 1st January 2017 and 31st December 2022, a total of 1661 men underwent a prostate biopsy at our institution. Clinical and mpMRI data of men with PI-RADS 3 lesions was reviewed. The study population was divided into two groups: target group, including those submitted to systematic plus targeted biopsy versus non-target group when only systematic or saturation biopsy were performed. Patients with PI-RADS 3 lesions were divided into three categories based on pathological biopsy results: benign, clinically insignificant disease (score Gleason = 6 or International Society of Urologic Pathologic (ISUP) 1) and clinically significant cancer (score Gleason ≥ 7 (3+4) or ISUP ≥ 2) according to target and non-target group. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify clinical predictors to improve the CsPCa detection rate in PI-RADS category 3 lesions. Results: A total of 130 men with PIRADS 3 index lesions were identified. Pathologic results were benign in 77 lesions (59.2%), 19 (14.6%) were clinically insignificant (Gleason score 6) and 34 (26.2%) were clinically significant (Gleason score 7 or higher). Eighty-seven of the patients were included in the target group (66.9%) and 43 in the non-target group (33.1%). The CsPCa detection was higher in the non-target group (32.6%, n = 14 vs 23.0%, n = 20 respectively). When systematic and target biopsies were jointly performed, if the results of systematic biopsies are not considered and only the results of target biopsies are taken into account, a CsPCa diagnosis would be missed on 9 patients. The differences of insignificant cancer and CsPCa rates among the target or non-target group were not statistically significant (p = 0.50 and p = 0.24, respectively). on multivariate analysis, the abnormal DRE and lesions localized in Peripheral zone (PZ) were significantly associated with a presence of CsPCa in PI-RADS 3 lesions (oR = 3.61, 95% CI [1.22,10.72], p = 0.02 and oR = 3.31, 95% CI [1.35, 8.11], p = 0.01, respectively). A higher median PSAD significantly predisposed for CsPCa on univariate analyses (p = 0.05), however, was not significant in the multivariate analysis (p = 0.76). In our population, using 0.10 ng/ml/ml as a cut-off to perform biopsy, 41 patients would have avoided biopsy (31.5%), but 5 cases of CsPCa would not have been detected (3.4%). We could not identify any statistical significance between other clinical and imagiological variables and CsPCa detection. Conclusions: PI-RADS 3 lesions were associated with a low likelihood of CsPCa detection. A systematic biopsy associated or not with target biopsy is essential in PI-RADS 3 lesions, and targeted biopsy did not demonstrate to be superior in the detection of CsPCa. The presence of abnormal DRE and lesions localized in PZ potentially predict the presence of CsPCa in biopsied PI-RADS 3 lesions.