Literature DB >> 20006859

Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen.

Thomas Hambrock1, Diederik M Somford, Caroline Hoeks, Stefan A W Bouwense, Henkjan Huisman, Derya Yakar, Inge M van Oort, J Alfred Witjes, Jurgen J Fütterer, Jelle O Barentsz.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Undetected cancer in repeat transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsies in patients with increased prostate specific antigen greater than 4 ng/ml is a considerable concern. We investigated the tumor detection rate of tumor suspicious regions on multimodal 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging and subsequent magnetic resonance imaging guided biopsy in 68 men with repeat negative transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsies. We compared results to those in a matched transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy population. Also, we determined the clinical significance of detected tumors.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 71 consecutive patients with prostate specific antigen greater than 4 ng/ml and 2 or greater negative transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy sessions underwent multimodal 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging. In 68 patients this was followed by magnetic resonance imaging guided biopsy directed toward tumor suspicious regions. A matched multisession transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy population from our institutional database was used for comparison. The clinical significance of detected tumors was established using accepted criteria, including prostate specific antigen, Gleason grade, stage and tumor volume.
RESULTS: The tumor detection rate of multimodal 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging guided biopsy was 59% (40 of 68 cases) using a median of 4 cores. The tumor detection rate was significantly higher than that of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in all patient subgroups (p <0.01) except in those with prostate specific antigen greater than 20 ng/ml, prostate volume greater than 65 cc and prostate specific antigen density greater than 0.5 ng/ml/cc, in which similar rates were achieved. Of the 40 patients with identified tumors 37 (93%) were considered highly likely to harbor clinically significant disease.
CONCLUSIONS: Multimodal magnetic resonance imaging is an effective technique to localize prostate cancer. Magnetic resonance imaging guided biopsy of tumor suspicious regions is an accurate method to detect clinically significant prostate cancer in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. Copyright 2010 American Urological Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 20006859     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  111 in total

1.  [MRI navigated stereotactic prostate biopsy: fusion of MRI and real-time transrectal ultrasound images for perineal prostate biopsies].

Authors:  T H Kuru; C Tulea; T Simpfendörfer; V Popeneciu; M Roethke; B A Hadaschik; M Hohenfellner
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 0.639

2.  Transatlantic Consensus Group on active surveillance and focal therapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Hashim U Ahmed; Oguz Akin; Jonathan A Coleman; Sarah Crane; Mark Emberton; Larry Goldenberg; Hedvig Hricak; Mike W Kattan; John Kurhanewicz; Caroline M Moore; Chris Parker; Thomas J Polascik; Peter Scardino; Nicholas van As; Arnauld Villers
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-11-11       Impact factor: 5.588

3.  MRI-guided prostate biopsy detects clinically significant cancer: analysis of a cohort of 100 patients after previous negative TRUS biopsy.

Authors:  M Roethke; A G Anastasiadis; M Lichy; M Werner; P Wagner; S Kruck; Claus D Claussen; A Stenzl; H P Schlemmer; D Schilling
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-04-22       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  [Standardised scoring of a multi-parametric 3-T MRI for a targeted MRI-guided prostate biopsy].

Authors:  C Arsov; D Blondin; R Rabenalt; G Antoch; P Albers; M Quentin
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 5.  Anatomic and Molecular Imaging in Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Eric T Miller; Amirali Salmasi; Robert E Reiter
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 6.915

6.  Incremental value of transition zone and midline apical biopsy at baseline TRUS-guided biopsy for prostate cancer detection.

Authors:  D M Somford; W Vreuls; T S Jansen; J P van Basten; H Vergunst
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2013-07-20       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Inter-reader agreement of the ESUR score for prostate MRI using in-bore MRI-guided biopsies as the reference standard.

Authors:  L Schimmöller; M Quentin; C Arsov; R S Lanzman; A Hiester; R Rabenalt; G Antoch; P Albers; D Blondin
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-06-12       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Initial experience with electronic tracking of specific tumor sites in men undergoing active surveillance of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Geoffrey A Sonn; Christopher P Filson; Edward Chang; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J Margolis; Malu Macairan; Patricia Lieu; Jiaoti Huang; Frederick J Dorey; Robert E Reiter; Leonard S Marks
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2014-07-11       Impact factor: 3.498

9.  3T MR-guided in-bore transperineal prostate biopsy: A comparison of robotic and manual needle-guidance templates.

Authors:  Gaurie Tilak; Kemal Tuncali; Sang-Eun Song; Junichi Tokuda; Olutayo Olubiyi; Fiona Fennessy; Andriy Fedorov; Tobias Penzkofer; Clare Tempany; Nobuhiko Hata
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2014-09-27       Impact factor: 4.813

10.  Pathologic findings in patients with targeted magnetic resonance imaging-guided prostate needle core biopsies.

Authors:  Rachel L Geller; Sherif G Nour; Adeboye O Osunkoya
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Pathol       Date:  2015-09-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.