Literature DB >> 21426475

Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection.

Jérémie Haffner1, Laurent Lemaitre, Philippe Puech, Georges-Pascal Haber, Xavier Leroy, J Stephen Jones, Arnauld Villers.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: •To compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsies with extended systematic biopsies for the detection of significant prostate cancer.
METHODS: •In all, 555 consecutive patients with suspicion of prostate cancer had pre-biopsy dynamic contrast-enhanced 1.5-tesla (T) MRI with pelvic coil, 10-12 transrectal ultrasound-guided extended systematic biopsies plus two targeted biopsies at any MRI area suspicious for malignancy. •Significant prostate cancer was defined as >5 mm total cancer length and/or any Gleason pattern >3. •Cancer length and grade at biopsy were reported and located on a 24-sector map.
RESULTS: •Median (range) prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 6.75 (0.18-100) ng/mL. •MRI was positive in 351 (63%) patients and, overall, 302 (54%) had cancer at extended systematic biopsies and/or targeted biopsies. Of 302 cancers detected, 249 (82%) were significant prostate cancers and 53 (18%) were nonsignificant prostate cancers. •Extended systematic biopsies did not detect 12 significant prostate cancers and targeted biopsies did not detect 13 significant prostate cancers. For significant prostate cancer detection, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of targeted biopsies were 0.95, 1.0 and 0.98. The values for extended systematic biopsies were 0.95, 0.83, and 0.88. •The detection accuracy of significant prostate cancer by targeted biopsies was higher than that by extended systematic biopsies (P < 0.001). Targeted biopsies also detected 16% more grade 4/5 cases and better quantified the cancer than extended systematic biopsies, with cancer length of 5.56 vs. 4.70 mm (P= 0.002). • A targeted biopsies-only strategy without extended systematic biopsies would have necessitated a mean of 3.8 cores performed in only 63% of patients with positive MRI and avoided the potentially unnecessary diagnosis of 13% (53/302) of nonsignificant prostate cancers.
CONCLUSIONS: • Strategy of targeted biopsies alone at pre-biopsy MRI-suspicious areas is an attractive potential alternative to extended systematic biopsies for detection of significant prostate cancer. •Further studies are necessary to validate the strategy of targeted biopsies alone.
© 2011 THE AUTHORS. BJU INTERNATIONAL © 2011 BJU INTERNATIONAL.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21426475     DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10112.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  119 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines. Author reply.

Authors:  Jelle Barentsz; Arnauld Villers; Martijn Schouten
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-06-11       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 3.  Targeted prostate biopsy and MR-guided therapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  David A Woodrum; Akira Kawashima; Krzysztof R Gorny; Lance A Mynderse
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2016-05

Review 4.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Prostate Biopsy: Review of Technology, Techniques, and Outcomes.

Authors:  Michael Kongnyuy; Arvin K George; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 5.  Standards for prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Marc A Bjurlin; Samir S Taneja
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 2.309

Review 6.  Optimization of prostate biopsy: the role of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in detection, localization and risk assessment.

Authors:  Marc A Bjurlin; Xiaosong Meng; Julien Le Nobin; James S Wysock; Herbert Lepor; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Samir S Taneja
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2014-04-21       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Kinzya B Grant; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 3.092

8.  The role of MRI-targeted and confirmatory biopsies for cancer upstaging at selection in patients considered for active surveillance for clinically low-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  François Marliere; Philippe Puech; Ahmed Benkirane; Arnauld Villers; Laurent Lemaitre; Xavier Leroy; Nacim Betrouni; Adil Ouzzane
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-05-12       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Steering Committee: PI-RADS v2 Status Update and Future Directions.

Authors:  Anwar R Padhani; Jeffrey Weinreb; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Geert Villeirs; Baris Turkbey; Jelle Barentsz
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2018-06-13       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 10.  Risk stratification in prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Monique J Roobol; Sigrid V Carlsson
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 14.432

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.