PURPOSE: We compared the accuracy of visual targeted biopsies vs computerized transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging registration using a rigid (Esaote®, nondeformable) or elastic (Koelis®, deformable) approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 391 consecutive patients with suspected localized prostate cancer were prospectively included in analysis. All patients underwent prostate magnetic resonance imaging, followed by 10 to 12-core random prostate biopsies. When magnetic resonance imaging detected suspicious findings, targeted biopsy was performed, including visual, rigid system and elastic system targeted biopsies in the first 127 patients, the next 131 and the last 133, respectively. Cancer detection rates were assessed by conditional logistic regression. Targeted biopsies alone and random biopsies were further compared for the amount of tissue sampled and microfocal cancer detection, the latter defined as a single core with 5 mm or less of Gleason 6 cancer. RESULTS: Patient characteristics and random biopsy detection rates were similar among the groups. Magnetic resonance imaging detected at least 1 suspicious area in 54 (42%), 78 (59%) and 82 patients (62%) in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The cancer detection rates of rigid and elastic system targeted biopsies were significantly higher than the random biopsy rate (p = 0.0065 and 0.0016, respectively). Visual targeted biopsy did not perform better than random biopsy (p = 0.66). Rigid and elastic system targeted biopsies allowed for decreasing the number of cores and the detection of microfocal cancer, while increasing the detection of high grade cancer. CONCLUSIONS: When performed with computerized magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound image registration, targeted biopsy alone improved cancer detection over random biopsies, decreased the detection rate of microfocal cancer and increased the detection rate of cancer with a Gleason score of greater than 6.
PURPOSE: We compared the accuracy of visual targeted biopsies vs computerized transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging registration using a rigid (Esaote®, nondeformable) or elastic (Koelis®, deformable) approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 391 consecutive patients with suspected localized prostate cancer were prospectively included in analysis. All patients underwent prostate magnetic resonance imaging, followed by 10 to 12-core random prostate biopsies. When magnetic resonance imaging detected suspicious findings, targeted biopsy was performed, including visual, rigid system and elastic system targeted biopsies in the first 127 patients, the next 131 and the last 133, respectively. Cancer detection rates were assessed by conditional logistic regression. Targeted biopsies alone and random biopsies were further compared for the amount of tissue sampled and microfocal cancer detection, the latter defined as a single core with 5 mm or less of Gleason 6 cancer. RESULTS:Patient characteristics and random biopsy detection rates were similar among the groups. Magnetic resonance imaging detected at least 1 suspicious area in 54 (42%), 78 (59%) and 82 patients (62%) in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The cancer detection rates of rigid and elastic system targeted biopsies were significantly higher than the random biopsy rate (p = 0.0065 and 0.0016, respectively). Visual targeted biopsy did not perform better than random biopsy (p = 0.66). Rigid and elastic system targeted biopsies allowed for decreasing the number of cores and the detection of microfocal cancer, while increasing the detection of high grade cancer. CONCLUSIONS: When performed with computerized magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound image registration, targeted biopsy alone improved cancer detection over random biopsies, decreased the detection rate of microfocal cancer and increased the detection rate of cancer with a Gleason score of greater than 6.
Authors: Dima Raskolnikov; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Arvin K George; Baris Turkbey; Nabeel A Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Jason T Rothwax; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Daniel Su; Lambros Stamatakis; Pingkun Yan; Jochen Kruecker; Sheng Xu; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Christian Herz; Kyle MacNeil; Peter A Behringer; Junichi Tokuda; Alireza Mehrtash; Parvin Mousavi; Ron Kikinis; Fiona M Fennessy; Clare M Tempany; Kemal Tuncali; Andriy Fedorov Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Ashwin N Sridhar; Archie Hughes-Hallett; Erik K Mayer; Philip J Pratt; Philip J Edwards; Guang-Zhong Yang; Ara W Darzi; Justin A Vale Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2013-06-18 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Richard Hoffmann; Callum Logan; Michael O'Callaghan; Kirsten Gormly; Ken Chan; Darren Foreman Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2017-11-29 Impact factor: 2.370
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
Authors: Shivani Pahwa; Nicholas K Schiltz; Lee E Ponsky; Ziang Lu; Mark A Griswold; Vikas Gulani Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-05-17 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: John A Onofrey; Lawrence H Staib; Saradwata Sarkar; Rajesh Venkataraman; Cayce B Nawaf; Preston C Sprenkle; Xenophon Papademetris Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2017-04-12 Impact factor: 8.545