Advertisement

Adoption of Prebiopsy Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Men Undergoing Prostate Biopsy in the United States

      Objective

      To assess adoption of prebiopsy prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the United States and to evaluate factors associated with magnetic resonance imaging-guided prostate biopsy (MRI-Bx) use. Prior reports have shown improved cancer detection with MRI-Bx vs transrectal ultrasound-guided methods (transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy [TRUS-Bx]). Population-based trends of their use and outcomes have not been previously characterized.

      Materials and Methods

      Using private insurance claims (2009-2015), we identified men who underwent prostate biopsy. Exposures were biopsy year and geographic region defined by metropolitan statistical area. Outcomes included biopsy type (MRI-Bx, TRUS-Bx, or transperineal biopsy) based on procedure codes and cancer detection based on a new diagnosis for prostate cancer (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM] 185). Hierarchical mixed-effects multivariable regression estimated odds of undergoing MRI-Bx.

      Results

      We identified 241,681 men (mean age 57.5 ± 5.4 years) who underwent biopsy. The use of MRI-Bx rose rapidly (0.2% in 2009 to 6.5% in 2015, P <.001). Overall, 3429 men underwent MRI before biopsy, more commonly in metropolitan statistical areas (odds ratio 1.90, 95% confidence interval 1.66-2.19). In 2015, nearly 18% of men with prior negative biopsy underwent a prebiopsy MRI. Patients with prior negative biopsies were over 4 times more likely to use MRI guidance (vs no prior biopsies, odds ratio 4.63, 95% confidence interval 4.27-5.02) and had a greater chance of cancer detection with MRI-Bx (25.2%) vs TRUS-Bx (19.7%, P = .010).

      Conclusion

      Among men undergoing prostate biopsy, prebiopsy prostate MRI utilization was concentrated within urban areas and among patients with prior negative biopsies, where its use was associated with superior cancer detection compared with traditional TRUS-Bx.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Hilton W.M.
        • Padalecki S.S.
        • Ankerst D.P.
        • Leach R.J.
        • Thompson I.M.
        Temporal changes in the clinical approach to diagnosing prostate cancer.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012; 2012: 162-168
        • Bjurlin M.A.
        • Wysock J.S.
        • Taneja S.S.
        Optimization of prostate biopsy: review of technique and complications.
        Urol Clin North Am. 2014; 41: 299-313
        • Taira A.V.
        • Merrick G.S.
        • Galbreath R.W.
        • et al.
        Performance of transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy in detecting prostate cancer in the initial and repeat biopsy setting.
        Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2010; 13: 71-77
        • Loeb S.
        • Carter H.B.
        • Berndt S.I.
        • Ricker W.
        • Schaeffer E.M.
        Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare.
        J Urol. 2011; 186: 1830-1834
        • Halpern J.A.
        • Sedrakyan A.
        • Dinerman B.
        • Hsu W.C.
        • Mao J.
        • Hu J.C.
        Indications, utilization and complications following prostate biopsy: a New York state analysis.
        J Urol. 2017; 197: 1020-1025
        • Siddiqui M.M.
        • Rais-Bahrami S.
        • Turkbey B.
        • et al.
        Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.
        JAMA. 2015; 313: 390-397
        • Filson C.P.
        • Natarajan S.
        • Margolis D.J.A.
        • et al.
        Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: the role of systematic and targeted biopsies.
        Cancer. 2016; 122: 884-892
        • Pinto P.A.
        • Chung P.H.
        • Rastinehad A.R.
        • et al.
        Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging.
        J Urol. 2011; 186: 1281-1285
        • Natarajan S.
        • Marks L.S.
        • Margolis D.J.A.
        • et al.
        Clinical application of a 3D ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy system.
        Urol Oncol. 2011; 29: 334-342
        • Berwick D.M.
        Disseminating innovations in health care.
        JAMA. 2003; 289: 1969-1975
        • Lowrance W.T.
        • Eastham J.A.
        • Savage C.
        Contemporary open and robotic radical prostatectomy practice patterns among urologists in the United States.
        J Urol. 2012; 187: 2087-2092
        • Barbash G.I.
        • Friedman B.
        • Glied S.A.
        • Steiner C.A.
        Factors associated with adoption of robotic surgical technology in US hospitals and relationship to radical prostatectomy procedure volume.
        Ann Surg. 2014; 259: 1-6
        • Mirkin J.N.
        • Lowrance W.T.
        • Feifer A.H.
        • Mulhall J.P.
        • Eastham J.E.
        • Elkin E.B.
        Direct-to-consumer Internet promotion of robotic prostatectomy exhibits varying quality of information.
        Health Aff. 2012; 31: 760-769
        • Sonn G.A.
        • Chang E.
        • Natarajan S.
        • et al.
        Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen.
        Eur Urol. 2014; 65: 809-815
        • Rosenkrantz A.B.
        • Verma S.
        • Choyke P.
        • et al.
        Prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a prior negative biopsy: a consensus statement by AUA and SAR.
        J Urol. 2016; 196: 1613-1618
        • Ahmed H.U.
        • Bosaily A.E.-S.
        • Brown L.C.
        • et al.
        Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study.
        Lancet. 2017; 389: 815-822
        • Kasivisvanathan V.
        • Rannikko A.S.
        • Borghi M.
        • et al.
        MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis.
        N Engl J Med. 2018; (Epub ahead of print)https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
        • Filson C.P.
        • Banerjee M.
        • Wolf Jr, J.S.
        • Ye Z.
        • Wei J.T.
        • Miller D.C.
        Surgeon characteristics and long-term trends in the adoption of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy.
        J Urol. 2011; 185: 2072-2077
        • Dhanani N.
        • O'Leary J.F.
        • Keeler E.
        • Bamezai A.
        • Melnick G.
        The effect of HMOs on the inpatient utilization of Medicare beneficiaries.
        Health Serv Res. 2004; 39: 1607-1628
        • Loggers E.T.
        • Fishman P.A.
        • Peterson D.
        • et al.
        Advanced imaging among health maintenance organization enrollees with cancer.
        J Oncol Pract. 2014; 10: 231-238
        • Rubenstein J.
        How to code for magnetic resonance imaging-informed prostate biopsies.
        Rev Urol. 2014; 16: 88-89
        • Baker L.C.
        Acquisition of MRI equipment by doctors drives up imaging use and spending.
        Health Aff. 2010; 29: 2252-2259
        • Rosenkrantz A.B.
        • Hemingway J.
        • Hughes D.R.
        • et al.
        Evolving utilization of pre-biopsy prostate MRI in the Medicare population.
        J Urol. 2018; (Epub ahead of print)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.01.071
        • Souza J.A.
        • Yap B.J.
        • Hlubocky F.J.
        • et al.
        The development of a financial toxicity patient-reported outcome in cancer: the COST measure.
        Cancer. 2014; 120: 3245-3253
        • Trish E.
        • Xu J.
        • Joyce G.
        Medicare beneficiaries face growing out-of-pocket burden for specialty drugs while in catastrophic coverage phase.
        Health Aff. 2016; 35: 1564-1571
        • Howard D.H.
        • Chernew M.E.
        • Abdelgawad T.
        • Smith G.L.
        • Sollano J.
        • Grabowski D.C.
        New anticancer drugs associated with large increases in costs and life expectancy.
        Health Aff. 2016; 35: 1581-1587