OBJECTIVES: To measure the performance characteristics of combined T2-weighted (T₂W) and diffusion-weighted (DW) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) suspicion scoring prior to MR-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion template transperineal (TTP) re-biopsy. METHODS: Thirty-nine patients referred for prostate re-biopsy, with prior MRI examinations, were retrospectively included. The MR images, including T₂W and DW-MRI, had been independently evaluated prospectively by two radiologists using a structured scoring system. An MR-TRUS fusion TTP re-biopsy was used for MR target and non-targeted biopsy cores. Targeting performance and correlation with disease status were evaluated on a per-patient and per-region basis. RESULTS: The cancer yield was 41% (16/39 patients). MR targeting accurately detected the disease in 12/16 (75%) cancerous patients and missed the disease in 4/16 (25%) patients, all with Gleason 3 + 3 disease. There was a significant relationship (P < 0.01) between MR suspicion score and the significance of cancer. Reader 1 had significantly higher sensitivity in the transition zone (TZ; 0.84) compared with the peripheral zone (PZ; 0.32) (P = 0.04). Inter-reader agreement was moderate for the PZ and substantial for the TZ. CONCLUSIONS: MRI targeting is beneficial in the setting of TTP MR-TRUS fusion re-biopsy and MR suspicion score relates to prostate cancer clinical significance. A T₂W and DW-MRI structured scoring system results in good inter-reader agreement in this setting. KEY POINTS: • Pre-biopsy MRI aids the detection of high significance cancer during prostate re-biopsy. • MRI suspicion level correlates with the clinical significance of prostate cancer detected. • T₂W and DW-MRI structured scoring of pre-biopsy MRI permits good inter-reader agreement.
OBJECTIVES: To measure the performance characteristics of combined T2-weighted (T₂W) and diffusion-weighted (DW) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) suspicion scoring prior to MR-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion template transperineal (TTP) re-biopsy. METHODS: Thirty-nine patients referred for prostate re-biopsy, with prior MRI examinations, were retrospectively included. The MR images, including T₂W and DW-MRI, had been independently evaluated prospectively by two radiologists using a structured scoring system. An MR-TRUS fusion TTP re-biopsy was used for MR target and non-targeted biopsy cores. Targeting performance and correlation with disease status were evaluated on a per-patient and per-region basis. RESULTS: The cancer yield was 41% (16/39 patients). MR targeting accurately detected the disease in 12/16 (75%) cancerouspatients and missed the disease in 4/16 (25%) patients, all with Gleason 3 + 3 disease. There was a significant relationship (P < 0.01) between MR suspicion score and the significance of cancer. Reader 1 had significantly higher sensitivity in the transition zone (TZ; 0.84) compared with the peripheral zone (PZ; 0.32) (P = 0.04). Inter-reader agreement was moderate for the PZ and substantial for the TZ. CONCLUSIONS: MRI targeting is beneficial in the setting of TTP MR-TRUS fusion re-biopsy and MR suspicion score relates to prostate cancer clinical significance. A T₂W and DW-MRI structured scoring system results in good inter-reader agreement in this setting. KEY POINTS: • Pre-biopsy MRI aids the detection of high significance cancer during prostate re-biopsy. • MRI suspicion level correlates with the clinical significance of prostate cancer detected. • T₂W and DW-MRI structured scoring of pre-biopsy MRI permits good inter-reader agreement.
Authors: Timur H Kuru; Karan Wadhwa; Richard Tsung Meng Chang; Lina Maria Carmona Echeverria; Matthias Roethke; Alexander Polson; Giles Rottenberg; Brendan Koo; Edward M Lawrence; Jonas Seidenader; Vincent Gnanapragasam; Richard Axell; Wilfried Roth; Anne Warren; Andrew Doble; Gordon Muir; Rick Popert; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Boris A Hadaschik; Christof Kastner Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-06-17 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Peter A Pinto; Paul H Chung; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Angelo A Baccala; Jochen Kruecker; Compton J Benjamin; Sheng Xu; Pingkun Yan; Samuel Kadoury; Celene Chua; Julia K Locklin; Baris Turkbey; Joanna H Shih; Stacey P Gates; Carey Buckner; Gennady Bratslavsky; W Marston Linehan; Neil D Glossop; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Simon R J Bott; Alastair Henderson; James E Halls; Bruce S I Montgomery; Robert Laing; Stephen E M Langley Journal: Urology Date: 2006-11-07 Impact factor: 2.649
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: Thomas Hambrock; Diederik M Somford; Caroline Hoeks; Stefan A W Bouwense; Henkjan Huisman; Derya Yakar; Inge M van Oort; J Alfred Witjes; Jurgen J Fütterer; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-12-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Siegfried A Schwab; Michael A Kuefner; Boris Adamietz; Karl Engelhard; Bastian Keck; Frank Kunath; Sven Wach; Bernd Wullich; Michael Uder; Dirk G Engehausen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-11-24 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Frank-Jan H Drost; Daniël F Osses; Daan Nieboer; Ewout W Steyerberg; Chris H Bangma; Monique J Roobol; Ivo G Schoots Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-04-25
Authors: Eva M Serrao; Tristan Barrett; Karan Wadhwa; Deepak Parashar; Julia Frey; Brendan C Koo; Anne Y Warren; Andrew Doble; Christof Kastner; Ferdia A Gallagher Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2015-12-14 Impact factor: 1.862