Literature DB >> 20418041

Guided e-MRI prostate biopsy can solve the discordance between Gleason score biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology.

Apostolos P Labanaris1, Vahudin Zugor, Robert Smiszek, Reinhold Nützel, Reinhard Kühn, Karl Engelhard.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to examine if guided prostate biopsies based on abnormalities detected by conventional and functional endorectal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) yield a more reliable representation of the radical prostatectomy pathology and to identify probable preoperative clinical variables that stratified patients likely to harbor significant upgrading. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From April 2004 to April 2009, a review of N=70 patients records diagnosed with prostate cancer by a 3-6 core guided transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) prostate biopsy based on abnormalities detected by conventional and functional endorectal MRI and who subsequently underwent radical prostatectomy and exhibited a significant upgrading was conducted. Additionally, a multivariate analysis with a significant upgrading as the outcome was performed including the following parameters: prostate specific antigen (PSA) level, clinical stage, prostate size and duration from biopsy to radical prostatectomy.
RESULTS: A significant upgrading was noted in only 8.5% of patients, with 1.4% exhibiting a significant downgrading and the rest 90.1% exhibiting an exact Gleason score match. No preoperative clinical variables that stratified patients likely to harbour significant upgrading were identified.
CONCLUSIONS: This type of biopsy method seems to solve the discordance between the biopsy Gleason score and radical prostatectomy pathology regardless of known preoperative clinical variables that can affect it.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20418041     DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2010.03.041

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging        ISSN: 0730-725X            Impact factor:   2.546


  7 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  Targeted Prostate Biopsy: Lessons Learned Midst the Evolution of a Disruptive Technology.

Authors:  Nima Nassiri; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J Margolis; Leonard S Marks
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2015-07-10       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 3.  MRI-targeted prostate biopsy: a review of technique and results.

Authors:  Nicola L Robertson; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-09-24       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 4.  The role of MRI in prostate cancer active surveillance.

Authors:  Linda M Johnson; Peter L Choyke; William D Figg; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-11-30       Impact factor: 3.411

5.  Disparities in staging prostate magnetic resonance imaging utilization for nonmetastatic prostate cancer patients undergoing definitive radiation therapy.

Authors:  Ayobami Ajayi; Wei-Ting Hwang; Neha Vapiwala; Mark Rosen; Christina H Chapman; Stefan Both; Meera Shah; Xingmei Wang; Atu Agawu; Peter Gabriel; John Christodouleas; Zelig Tochner; Curtiland Deville
Journal:  Adv Radiat Oncol       Date:  2016-07-25

6.  A positive magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging with negative initial biopsy may predict future detection of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Durgesh Kumar Dwivedi; Virendra Kumar; Tarun Javali; Amit K Dinda; Sanjay Thulkar; Naranmangalam R Jagannathan; Rajeev Kumar
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2012-04

Review 7.  The current and future role of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer detection and management.

Authors:  Jan Philipp Radtke; Dogu Teber; Markus Hohenfellner; Boris A Hadaschik
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2015-06
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.