BACKGROUND: A key challenge for prostate cancer (PC) therapy is to exactly diagnose tumor lesions. In this context we describe a new stereotactic prostate biopsy system, which integrates pre-interventional MRI with peri-interventional ultrasound for targeted perineal prostate biopsies. Furthermore, the novel system allows exact documentation of biopsies in three dimensions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Stereotactic biopsy was performed in 50 consecutive men with suspicion of PC [median age 67 years (42-77), mean PSA 8.9±6.8 ng/ml, and mean prostate volume 51±23.7 ml]. Twenty-five of these patients (50%) had already had a negative transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy. All men underwent multiparametric, contrast-enhanced 3T MRI without endorectal coil. Suspicious lesions were marked before the obtained data were transferred to a novel stereotactic biopsy system. Using a custom-made biplane TRUS probe mounted on a stepper, 3-D ultrasound data were generated and fused with the MRI. As a result, suspicious MRI lesions were superimposed onto the TRUS data. Next, 3-D biopsy planning was performed including systematic biopsies from the peripheral zone of the prostate. According to local standards patients were treated with perioperative quinolone antibiotics and applied a rectal enema the evening before the procedure. Perineal biopsies were taken under live US imaging, and the location of each biopsy was documented in an individual 3-D model. Feasibility, safety, target registration error, and cancer detection were evaluated. RESULTS: The median number of biopsies taken per patient was 24 (12-36). In 27 men of the initial cohort of 50 consecutive patients presented here, biopsy samples showed PC (54%). In patients undergoing their first biopsy, cancerous lesions were diagnosed in 13 of 19 patients (68%). The result was positive in 36% of men undergoing a re-biopsy without previous cancer diagnosis (9/25). A positive correlation between MRI findings and histopathology was found in 72%. In MRI lesions marked as highly suspicious, the tumor detection rate was 100% (13/13). Looking at single cores from highly suspicious lesions, 40 of 75 (53%) biopsies were positive. The target registration error of the first 1,159 biopsy cores was 1.7 mm. Regarding adverse effects, one patient experienced urinary retention and one patient a perineal hematoma. Urinary tract infections did not occur. CONCLUSION: Perineal stereotactic prostate biopsies guided by the combination of MRI and ultrasound allow effective examination of suspicious MRI lesions. Each biopsy core taken is documented accurately for its location in 3-D enabling MRI validation and tailored treatment planning. The morbidity of the procedure was minimal.
BACKGROUND: A key challenge for prostate cancer (PC) therapy is to exactly diagnose tumor lesions. In this context we describe a new stereotactic prostate biopsy system, which integrates pre-interventional MRI with peri-interventional ultrasound for targeted perineal prostate biopsies. Furthermore, the novel system allows exact documentation of biopsies in three dimensions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Stereotactic biopsy was performed in 50 consecutive men with suspicion of PC [median age 67 years (42-77), mean PSA 8.9±6.8 ng/ml, and mean prostate volume 51±23.7 ml]. Twenty-five of these patients (50%) had already had a negative transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy. All men underwent multiparametric, contrast-enhanced 3T MRI without endorectal coil. Suspicious lesions were marked before the obtained data were transferred to a novel stereotactic biopsy system. Using a custom-made biplane TRUS probe mounted on a stepper, 3-D ultrasound data were generated and fused with the MRI. As a result, suspicious MRI lesions were superimposed onto the TRUS data. Next, 3-D biopsy planning was performed including systematic biopsies from the peripheral zone of the prostate. According to local standards patients were treated with perioperative quinolone antibiotics and applied a rectal enema the evening before the procedure. Perineal biopsies were taken under live US imaging, and the location of each biopsy was documented in an individual 3-D model. Feasibility, safety, target registration error, and cancer detection were evaluated. RESULTS: The median number of biopsies taken per patient was 24 (12-36). In 27 men of the initial cohort of 50 consecutive patients presented here, biopsy samples showed PC (54%). In patients undergoing their first biopsy, cancerous lesions were diagnosed in 13 of 19 patients (68%). The result was positive in 36% of men undergoing a re-biopsy without previous cancer diagnosis (9/25). A positive correlation between MRI findings and histopathology was found in 72%. In MRI lesions marked as highly suspicious, the tumor detection rate was 100% (13/13). Looking at single cores from highly suspicious lesions, 40 of 75 (53%) biopsies were positive. The target registration error of the first 1,159 biopsy cores was 1.7 mm. Regarding adverse effects, one patient experienced urinary retention and one patient a perineal hematoma. Urinary tract infections did not occur. CONCLUSION: Perineal stereotactic prostate biopsies guided by the combination of MRI and ultrasound allow effective examination of suspicious MRI lesions. Each biopsy core taken is documented accurately for its location in 3-D enabling MRI validation and tailored treatment planning. The morbidity of the procedure was minimal.
Authors: Jean J M C H de la Rosette; Margot H Wink; Charalampos Mamoulakis; Niels Wondergem; Fiebo J C ten Kate; Koos Zwinderman; Theo M de Reijke; Hessel Wijkstra Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-08-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Sheng Xu; Jochen Kruecker; Julia Locklin; Yuxi Pang; Marcelino Bernardo; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Axel Heidenreich; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Steven Joniau; Malcolm Mason; Vsevolod Matveev; Nicolas Mottet; Hans-Peter Schmid; Theo van der Kwast; Thomas Wiegel; Filliberto Zattoni Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jeffrey J Tosoian; Bruce J Trock; Patricia Landis; Zhaoyong Feng; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; H Ballentine Carter Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-04-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Anurag K Singh; Jochen Kruecker; Sheng Xu; Neil Glossop; Peter Guion; Karen Ullman; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood Journal: BJU Int Date: 2007-12-05 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Anthony N Hoang; Dmitry Volkin; Nitin K Yerram; Srinivas Vourganti; Jeffrey Nix; W Marston Linehan; Bradford Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: Curr Opin Urol Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 2.309
Authors: Reshani H Perera; Al de Leon; Xinning Wang; Yu Wang; Gopal Ramamurthy; Pubudu Peiris; Eric Abenojar; James P Basilion; Agata A Exner Journal: Nanomedicine Date: 2020-04-26 Impact factor: 5.307