MP30-07 A MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMPARISON OF MULTI-PARAMETRIC MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING PROSTATE FUSION BIOPSY METRICS: VALIDATION OF ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE METRIC AND REDUCTION METRIC (2019)

You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Detection & Screening IV (MP30)1 Apr 2019MP30-07 A MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL COMPARISON OF MULTI-PARAMETRIC MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING PROSTATE FUSION BIOPSY METRICS: VALIDATION OF ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE METRIC AND REDUCTION METRIC Jeffrey L. Ellis*, Richard E. Fan, Geoffrey A. Sonn, David Y. T. Chen, Benjamin T. Ristau, Rosaleen B. Parsons, Barton Milestone, Marion Brody, Laura Levin, Rosalia Viterbo, Richard Greenberg, Marc Smaldone, Robert Uzzo, Jordan Anaokar, and Alexander Kutikov Jeffrey L. Ellis*Jeffrey L. Ellis* More articles by this author , Richard E. FanRichard E. Fan More articles by this author , Geoffrey A. SonnGeoffrey A. Sonn More articles by this author , David Y. T. ChenDavid Y. T. Chen More articles by this author , Benjamin T. RistauBenjamin T. Ristau More articles by this author , Rosaleen B. ParsonsRosaleen B. Parsons More articles by this author , Barton MilestoneBarton Milestone More articles by this author , Marion BrodyMarion Brody More articles by this author , Laura LevinLaura Levin More articles by this author , Rosalia ViterboRosalia Viterbo More articles by this author , Richard GreenbergRichard Greenberg More articles by this author , Marc SmaldoneMarc Smaldone More articles by this author , Robert UzzoRobert Uzzo More articles by this author , Jordan AnaokarJordan Anaokar More articles by this author , and Alexander KutikovAlexander Kutikov More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000555861.17075.4bAboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The AIM and ReM were recently introduced to objectify fusion biopsy deliverables. The AIM metric affords a quantifiable assessment of when US/MRI fusion targeted biopsy (TB) technology provides actionable information over standard systematic template biopsy (SB). Meanwhile, ReM captures the cases where a SB could have been omitted. Here we applied these tools to two large tertiary center cohorts at disparate geographic locations, diverse patient populations, and different fusion biopsy methods to help understand how TB technology performs in varied clinical settings. METHODS: Using prospectively maintained databases, we identified men who underwent concomitant TB and SB using the UroNav System (InVivo®) at Fox Chase Cancer Center and the Artemis System (Eigen®) at Stanford University Medical Center. Actionable intelligence metric (AIM) was defined as all patients with higher Gleason score (GS) on TB (minimum GS ≥ 3+4=7) relative to SB divided by total patients with GS ≥ 3+4=7 CaP (i.e. % patients for whom TB offered actionable information over SB). Reduction metric (ReM) was defined as 1 - [all patients with higher GS on SB relative to TB ÷ total patients undergoing biopsy] (i.e. % patients who could have foregone SB). RESULTS: We analyzed 1,505 biopsies (patient median age: 65.2, median PSA: 7.1) performed at two institutions between March 2014 and September 2018. Across both institutions, patients with a previous negative biopsy had considerably higher AIM's than naive patient or those on active surveillance, while patients with a PIRADS 3 lesion on MRI had the lowest AIM of any subgroup (Figure 1). Patients with a PIRADS 3 lesion had the highest ReM while patients on active surveillance had the lowest ReM at both institutions (Figure 1). CONCLUSIONS: Significantly more patients benefited from fusion targeting technology at Institution 2 (45%) than Institution 1 (26%). While relatively similar percentage of patients (∼85%) could have had SB omitted at both Centers. AIM and ReM metrics are likely a reflection of patient case-mix, mpMRI read accuracy, and co-registration quality. Assessment of AIM/ReM provides meaningful and useful comparisons of fusion biopsy deliverables and affords opportunities for multidisciplinary optimization of this complex technology. Source of Funding: None Philadelphia, PA; Stanford, CA; Philadelphia, PA; Farmington, CT; Philadelphia, PA© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 201Issue Supplement 4April 2019Page: e425-e425 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Jeffrey L. Ellis* More articles by this author Richard E. Fan More articles by this author Geoffrey A. Sonn More articles by this author David Y. T. Chen More articles by this author Benjamin T. Ristau More articles by this author Rosaleen B. Parsons More articles by this author Barton Milestone More articles by this author Marion Brody More articles by this author Laura Levin More articles by this author Rosalia Viterbo More articles by this author Richard Greenberg More articles by this author Marc Smaldone More articles by this author Robert Uzzo More articles by this author Jordan Anaokar More articles by this author Alexander Kutikov More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...