PURPOSE: Transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy results rely on physician ability to target the gland according to the biopsy schema. However, to our knowledge it is unknown how accurately the freehand, transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy cores are placed in the prostate and how the geometric distribution of biopsy cores may affect the prostate cancer detection rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To determine the geometric distribution of cores, we developed a biopsy simulation system with pelvic mock-ups and an optical tracking system. Mock-ups were biopsied in a freehand manner by 5 urologists and by our transrectal ultrasound robot, which can support and move the transrectal ultrasound probe. We compared 1) targeting errors, 2) the accuracy and precision of repeat biopsies, and 3) the estimated significant prostate cancer (0.5 cm(3) or greater) detection rate using a probability based model. RESULTS: Urologists biopsied cores in clustered patterns and under sampled a significant portion of the prostate. The robot closely followed the predefined biopsy schema. The mean targeting error of the urologists and the robot was 9.0 and 1.0 mm, respectively. Robotic assistance significantly decreased repeat biopsy errors with improved accuracy and precision. The mean significant prostate cancer detection rate of the urologists and the robot was 36% and 43%, respectively (p <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Systematic biopsy with freehand transrectal ultrasound guidance does not closely follow the sextant schema and may result in suboptimal sampling and cancer detection. Repeat freehand biopsy of the same target is challenging. Robotic assistance with optimized biopsy schemas can potentially improve targeting, precision and accuracy. A clinical trial is needed to confirm the additional benefits of robotic assistance.
PURPOSE: Transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy results rely on physician ability to target the gland according to the biopsy schema. However, to our knowledge it is unknown how accurately the freehand, transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy cores are placed in the prostate and how the geometric distribution of biopsy cores may affect the prostate cancer detection rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To determine the geometric distribution of cores, we developed a biopsy simulation system with pelvic mock-ups and an optical tracking system. Mock-ups were biopsied in a freehand manner by 5 urologists and by our transrectal ultrasound robot, which can support and move the transrectal ultrasound probe. We compared 1) targeting errors, 2) the accuracy and precision of repeat biopsies, and 3) the estimated significant prostate cancer (0.5 cm(3) or greater) detection rate using a probability based model. RESULTS: Urologists biopsied cores in clustered patterns and under sampled a significant portion of the prostate. The robot closely followed the predefined biopsy schema. The mean targeting error of the urologists and the robot was 9.0 and 1.0 mm, respectively. Robotic assistance significantly decreased repeat biopsy errors with improved accuracy and precision. The mean significant prostate cancer detection rate of the urologists and the robot was 36% and 43%, respectively (p <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Systematic biopsy with freehand transrectal ultrasound guidance does not closely follow the sextant schema and may result in suboptimal sampling and cancer detection. Repeat freehand biopsy of the same target is challenging. Robotic assistance with optimized biopsy schemas can potentially improve targeting, precision and accuracy. A clinical trial is needed to confirm the additional benefits of robotic assistance.
Authors: Al B Barqawi; Kyle O Rove; Saeed Gholizadeh; Colin I O'Donnell; Hari Koul; E David Crawford Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-05-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: A V Taira; G S Merrick; R W Galbreath; H Andreini; W Taubenslag; R Curtis; W M Butler; E Adamovich; K E Wallner Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2009-09-29 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: N Westhoff; F P Siegel; D Hausmann; M Polednik; J von Hardenberg; M S Michel; M Ritter Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-11-09 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Niravkumar A Patel; Gang Li; Weijian Shang; Marek Wartenberg; Tamas Heffter; Everette C Burdette; Iulian Iordachita; Junichi Tokuda; Nobuhiko Hata; Clare M Tempany; Gregory S Fischer Journal: J Med Robot Res Date: 2018-05-15
Authors: Mitchell Kamrava; Amar U Kishan; Daniel J Margolis; Jiaoti Huang; Fred Dorey; Patricia Lieu; Patrick A Kupelian; Leonard S Marks Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-06-06
Authors: Dan Stoianovici; Chunwoo Kim; Govindarajan Srimathveeravalli; Peter Sebrecht; Doru Petrisor; Jonathan Coleman; Stephen B Solomon; Hedvig Hricak Journal: IEEE ASME Trans Mechatron Date: 2013-09-16 Impact factor: 5.303
Authors: Edward Chang; Tonye A Jones; Shyam Natarajan; Devi Sharma; Demetrios Simopoulos; Daniel J Margolis; Jiaoti Huang; Frederick J Dorey; Leonard S Marks Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-07-18 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Christopher P Filson; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J A Margolis; Jiaoti Huang; Patricia Lieu; Frederick J Dorey; Robert E Reiter; Leonard S Marks Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Leonardo O Reis; Brunno C F Sanches; Gustavo Borges de Mendonça; Daniel M Silva; Tiago Aguiar; Ocivaldo P Menezes; Athanase Billis Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-08-02 Impact factor: 4.226