Transperineal template saturation and conventional biopsy for stage prediction in prostate cancer

Objective To evaluate the performance of risk calculators (RCs) predicting lymph node invasion (LNI) and extraprostatic extension (EPE) in men undergoing transperineal magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-fusion template saturation biopsy (TTSB) and conventional systematic TRUS-guided biopsy (SB).Patients and Methods The RCs were tested in a consecutive cohort of 645 men undergoing radical prostatectomy with extended pelvic LN dissection between 2005 and 2019. TTSB was performed in 230 (35.7%) and SB in 415 (64.3%) men. Risk of LNI and EPE was calculated using the available RCs. Discrimination, calibration, and clinical usefulness stratified by different biopsy techniques were assessed.Results Lymph node invasion was observed in 23 (10%) and EPE in 73 (31.8%) of cases with TTSB and 53 (12.8%) and 158 (38%) with SB, respectively. RCs showed an excellent discrimination and acceptable calibration for prediction of LNI based on TTSB (area under the curve [AUC]/risk estimation: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center [MSKCC]-RC 0.79/-4%, Briganti (2012)-RC 0.82/-4%, Gandaglia-RC 0.81/+6%). These were comparable in SB (MSKCC-RC 0.78/+2%; Briganti (2012)-RC 0.77/-3%). Decision curve analysis (DCA) revealed a net benefit at threshold probabilities between 3% and 6% when TTSB was used. For prediction of EPE based on TTSB an inferior discrimination and variable calibration were observed (AUC/risk estimation: MSKCC-RC 0.71/+8% and Martini (2018)-RC 0.69/+2%) achieving a net benefit on DCA only at risk thresholds of >17%. Performance of RCs for prediction of LNI and EPE based on SB showed comparable results with a better performance in the DCA for LNI (risk thresholds 1-2%) and poorer performance for EPE (risk threshold >20%). This study is limited by its retrospective single-institution design.Conclusions The potentially more accurate grading ability of TTSB did not result in improved performance of preoperative RCs. Prediction tools for LNI proved clinical usefulness while RCs for EPE did not.