Literature DB >> 20882642

Accuracy of MRI/MRSI-based transrectal ultrasound biopsy in peripheral and transition zones of the prostate gland in patients with prior negative biopsy.

Claudia Testa1, Riccardo Schiavina, Raffaele Lodi, Eugenio Salizzoni, Caterina Tonon, Antonietta D'Errico, Barbara Corti, Antonio Maria Morselli-Labate, Alessandro Franceschelli, Alessandro Bertaccini, Fabio Manferrarik, Walter Francesco Grigioni, Romeo Canini, Giuseppe Martorana, Bruno Barbiroli.   

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the accuracy of transrectal ultrasound biopsy (TRUS-biopsy) performed on regions with abnormal MRI and/or MRSI for both the transition (TZ) and the peripheral (PZ) zones in patients with suspected prostate cancer with prior negative biopsy, and to analyze the relationship between MRSI and histopathological findings. MRI and MRSI were performed in 54 patients (mean age: 63.9 years, mean PSA value: 11.4 ng/mL) and the ability of MRI/MRSI-directed TRUS biopsy was evaluated. A three-point score system was used for both techniques to distinguish healthy from malignant regions. Descriptive statistics and ROC analyses were performed to evaluate the accuracy and the best cut-off in the three-point score system. Twenty-two out of 54 patients presented cancer at MRI/MRSI-directed TRUS biopsy, nine presented cancer only in PZ, eight both in PZ and TZ, and five exclusively in TZ. On a patient basis the highest accuracy was obtained by assigning malignancy on a positive finding with MRSI and MRI even though it was not significantly greater than that obtained using MRI alone (area under the ROC curve, AUC: 0.723 vs 0.676). On a regional (n = 648) basis the best accuracy was also obtained by considering positive both MRSI and MRI for PZ (0.768) and TZ (0.822). MRSI was false positive in 11.9% of the regions. Twenty-eight percent of cores with prostatitis were false positive findings on MRSI, whereas only 2.7% of benign prostatic hyperplasia was false positive. In conclusion, the accuracy of MRI/MRSI-directed biopsies in localization of prostate cancer is good in patient (0.723) and region analyses (0.768). The combination of both MRI and MRSI results makes TRUS-biopsy more accurate, particularly in the TZ (0.822) for patients with prior negative biopsies. Histopathological analysis showed that the main limitation of MRSI is the percentage of false positive findings due to prostatitis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20882642     DOI: 10.1002/nbm.1522

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  NMR Biomed        ISSN: 0952-3480            Impact factor:   4.044


  10 in total

1.  MRI-directed cognitive fusion-guided biopsy of the anterior prostate tumors.

Authors:  Ian G Murphy; Elaine NiMhurchu; Robert G Gibney; Colm J McMahon
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2017 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.630

Review 2.  A decade in prostate cancer: from NMR to metabolomics.

Authors:  Elita M DeFeo; Chin-Lee Wu; W Scott McDougal; Leo L Cheng
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2011-05-17       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  The biopsy Gleason score 3+4 in a single core does not necessarily reflect an unfavourable pathological disease after radical prostatectomy in comparison with biopsy Gleason score 3+3: looking for larger selection criteria for active surveillance candidates.

Authors:  R Schiavina; M Borghesi; E Brunocilla; D Romagnoli; D Diazzi; F Giunchi; V Vagnoni; C V Pultrone; H Dababneh; A Porreca; M Fiorentino; G Martorana
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2015-06-09       Impact factor: 5.554

Review 4.  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

5.  Magnetic resonance image-guided biopsies with a high detection rate of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Dirk G Engehausen; Karl Engelhard; Siegfried A Schwab; Michael Uder; Sven Wach; Bernd Wullich; F Steffen Krause
Journal:  ScientificWorldJournal       Date:  2012-03-12

Review 6.  Magnetic resonance imaging-guided prostate biopsy: present and future.

Authors:  Chan Kyo Kim
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2015-01-09       Impact factor: 3.500

Review 7.  Metabolic Imaging in Prostate Cancer: Where We Are.

Authors:  Claudia Testa; Cristian Pultrone; David Neil Manners; Riccardo Schiavina; Raffaele Lodi
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2016-11-09       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 8.  A systematic review on multiparametric MR imaging in prostate cancer detection.

Authors:  Roberta Fusco; Mario Sansone; Vincenza Granata; Sergio Venanzio Setola; Antonella Petrillo
Journal:  Infect Agent Cancer       Date:  2017-10-30       Impact factor: 2.965

9.  "In-Bore" MRI-Guided Prostate Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Results from 140 Consecutive Patients.

Authors:  Daniele D'Agostino; Daniele Romagnoli; Marco Giampaoli; Federico Mineo Bianchi; Paolo Corsi; Alessandro Del Rosso; Riccardo Schiavina; Eugenio Brunocilla; Walter Artibani; Angelo Porreca
Journal:  Curr Urol       Date:  2020-03-20

10.  Repeat prostate biopsy strategies after initial negative biopsy: meta-regression comparing cancer detection of transperineal, transrectal saturation and MRI guided biopsy.

Authors:  Adam W Nelson; Rebecca C Harvey; Richard A Parker; Christof Kastner; Andrew Doble; Vincent J Gnanapragasam
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-02-27       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.