Geoffrey A Sonn1, Edward Chang2, Shyam Natarajan3, Daniel J Margolis4, Malu Macairan2, Patricia Lieu2, Jiaoti Huang5, Frederick J Dorey6, Robert E Reiter2, Leonard S Marks2. 1. Department of Urology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Electronic address: geoffsonn@gmail.com. 2. Department of Urology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Center for Advanced Surgical and Interventional Technology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 5. Department of Pathology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 6. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conventional biopsy fails to detect the presence of some prostate cancers (PCas). Men with a prior negative biopsy but persistently elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) pose a diagnostic dilemma, as some harbor elusive cancer. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether use of magnetic resonance-ultrasound (MR-US) fusion biopsy results in improved detection of PCa compared to repeat conventional biopsy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In a consecutive-case series, 105 subjects with prior negative biopsy and elevated PSA values underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and fusion biopsy in an outpatient setting. INTERVENTION: Suspicious areas on multiparametric MRI were delineated and graded by a radiologist; MR-US fusion biopsy was performed by a urologist using the Artemis device; targeted and systematic biopsies were obtained regardless of MRI result. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Detection rates of all PCa and clinically significant PCa (Gleason ≥3+4 or Gleason 6 with maximal cancer core length ≥4 mm) were determined. The yield of targeted biopsy was compared to systematic biopsy. The ability of an MRI grading system to predict clinically significant cancer was investigated. Stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine predictors of significant cancer on biopsy. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Fusion biopsy revealed PCa in 36 of 105 men (34%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 25-45). Seventy-two percent of men with PCa had clinically significant disease; 21 of 23 men (91%) with PCa on targeted biopsy had significant cancer compared to 15 of 28 (54%) with systematic biopsy. Degree of suspicion on MRI was the most powerful predictor of significant cancer on multivariate analysis. Twelve of 14 (86%) subjects with a highly suspicious MRI target were diagnosed with clinically significant cancer. CONCLUSIONS: MR-US fusion biopsy provides improved detection of PCa in men with prior negative biopsies and elevated PSA values. Most cancers found were clinically significant.
BACKGROUND: Conventional biopsy fails to detect the presence of some prostate cancers (PCas). Men with a prior negative biopsy but persistently elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) pose a diagnostic dilemma, as some harbor elusive cancer. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether use of magnetic resonance-ultrasound (MR-US) fusion biopsy results in improved detection of PCa compared to repeat conventional biopsy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In a consecutive-case series, 105 subjects with prior negative biopsy and elevated PSA values underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and fusion biopsy in an outpatient setting. INTERVENTION: Suspicious areas on multiparametric MRI were delineated and graded by a radiologist; MR-US fusion biopsy was performed by a urologist using the Artemis device; targeted and systematic biopsies were obtained regardless of MRI result. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Detection rates of all PCa and clinically significant PCa (Gleason ≥3+4 or Gleason 6 with maximal cancer core length ≥4 mm) were determined. The yield of targeted biopsy was compared to systematic biopsy. The ability of an MRI grading system to predict clinically significant cancer was investigated. Stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine predictors of significant cancer on biopsy. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Fusion biopsy revealed PCa in 36 of 105 men (34%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 25-45). Seventy-two percent of men with PCa had clinically significant disease; 21 of 23 men (91%) with PCa on targeted biopsy had significant cancer compared to 15 of 28 (54%) with systematic biopsy. Degree of suspicion on MRI was the most powerful predictor of significant cancer on multivariate analysis. Twelve of 14 (86%) subjects with a highly suspicious MRI target were diagnosed with clinically significant cancer. CONCLUSIONS: MR-US fusion biopsy provides improved detection of PCa in men with prior negative biopsies and elevated PSA values. Most cancers found were clinically significant.
Authors: Aristotelis G Anastasiadis; Matthias P Lichy; Udo Nagele; Markus A Kuczyk; Axel S Merseburger; Joerg Hennenlotter; Stefan Corvin; Karl-Dietrich Sievert; Claus D Claussen; Arnulf Stenzl; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2006-03-24 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Caroline M Moore; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Scott Eggener; Mark Emberton; Jurgen J Fütterer; Inderbir S Gill; Robert L Grubb Iii; Boris Hadaschik; Laurence Klotz; Daniel J A Margolis; Leonard S Marks; Jonathan Melamed; Aytekin Oto; Suzanne L Palmer; Peter Pinto; Philippe Puech; Shonit Punwani; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Ivo G Schoots; Richard Simon; Samir S Taneja; Baris Turkbey; Osamu Ukimura; Jan van der Meulen; Arnauld Villers; Yuji Watanabe Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-03-20 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Caroline M Moore; Nicola L Robertson; Nasr Arsanious; Thomas Middleton; Arnauld Villers; Laurence Klotz; Samir S Taneja; Mark Emberton Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-06-13 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Leonard S Marks; Yves Fradet; Ina Lim Deras; Amy Blase; Jeannette Mathis; Sheila M J Aubin; Anthony T Cancio; Marie Desaulniers; William J Ellis; Harry Rittenhouse; Jack Groskopf Journal: Urology Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Gregory S Merrick; Sarah Gutman; Hugo Andreini; Walter Taubenslag; David L Lindert; Rodney Curtis; Edward Adamovich; Richard Anderson; Zachariah Allen; Wayne Butler; Kent Wallner Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2007-02-23 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: B Djavan; V Ravery; A Zlotta; P Dobronski; M Dobrovits; M Fakhari; C Seitz; M Susani; A Borkowski; L Boccon-Gibod; C C Schulman; M Marberger Journal: J Urol Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Caroline M A Hoeks; Martijn G Schouten; Joyce G R Bomers; Stefan P Hoogendoorn; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Thomas Hambrock; Henk Vergunst; J P Michiel Sedelaar; Jurgen J Fütterer; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Nima Nassiri; Daniel J Margolis; Shyam Natarajan; Devi S Sharma; Jiaoti Huang; Frederick J Dorey; Leonard S Marks Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 7.450
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: Abhinav Sidana; Matthew J Watson; Arvin K George; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Srinivas Vourganti; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Akhil Muthigi; Mahir Maruf; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Jeffrey W Nix; Maria J Merino; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Ryan L Brunsing; Natalie M Schenker-Ahmed; Nathan S White; J Kellogg Parsons; Christopher Kane; Joshua Kuperman; Hauke Bartsch; Andrew Karim Kader; Rebecca Rakow-Penner; Tyler M Seibert; Daniel Margolis; Steven S Raman; Carrie R McDonald; Nikdokht Farid; Santosh Kesari; Donna Hansel; Ahmed Shabaik; Anders M Dale; David S Karow Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 4.813