Literature DB >> 24793118

Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy for prediction of final prostate pathology.

Jesse D Le1, Samuel Stephenson2, Michelle Brugger2, David Y Lu3, Patricia Lieu1, Geoffrey A Sonn4, Shyam Natarajan5, Frederick J Dorey1, Jiaoti Huang3, Daniel J A Margolis6, Robert E Reiter1, Leonard S Marks7.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We explored the impact of magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy on the prediction of final surgical pathology.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 54 consecutive men undergoing radical prostatectomy at UCLA after fusion biopsy were included in this prospective, institutional review board approved pilot study. Using magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion, tissue was obtained from a 12-point systematic grid (mapping biopsy) and from regions of interest detected by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (targeted biopsy). A single radiologist read all magnetic resonance imaging, and a single pathologist independently rereviewed all biopsy and whole mount pathology, blinded to prior interpretation and matched specimen. Gleason score concordance between biopsy and prostatectomy was the primary end point.
RESULTS: Mean patient age was 62 years and median prostate specific antigen was 6.2 ng/ml. Final Gleason score at prostatectomy was 6 (13%), 7 (70%) and 8-9 (17%). A tertiary pattern was detected in 17 (31%) men. Of 45 high suspicion (image grade 4-5) magnetic resonance imaging targets 32 (71%) contained prostate cancer. The per core cancer detection rate was 20% by systematic mapping biopsy and 42% by targeted biopsy. The highest Gleason pattern at prostatectomy was detected by systematic mapping biopsy in 54%, targeted biopsy in 54% and a combination in 81% of cases. Overall 17% of cases were upgraded from fusion biopsy to final pathology and 1 (2%) was downgraded. The combination of targeted biopsy and systematic mapping biopsy was needed to obtain the best predictive accuracy.
CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy allowed for the prediction of final prostate pathology with greater accuracy than that reported previously using conventional methods (81% vs 40% to 65%). If confirmed, these results will have important clinical implications.
Copyright © 2014 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biopsy; magnetic resonance imaging; prostatectomy; prostatic neoplasms; ultrasonography

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24793118      PMCID: PMC4201866          DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.04.094

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  30 in total

1.  The prognostic significance of tertiary Gleason patterns of higher grade in radical prostatectomy specimens: a proposal to modify the Gleason grading system.

Authors:  C C Pan; S R Potter; A W Partin; J I Epstein
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 6.394

Review 2.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; William C Allsbrook; Mahul B Amin; Lars L Egevad
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 6.394

3.  Extended prostate needle biopsy improves concordance of Gleason grading between prostate needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Ignacio F San Francisco; William C DeWolf; Seymour Rosen; Melissa Upton; Aria F Olumi
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Postoperative nomogram for disease recurrence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  M W Kattan; T M Wheeler; P T Scardino
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Prostate biopsy grading errors: a sampling problem?

Authors:  C R King; J P Long
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2000-12-20       Impact factor: 7.396

6.  Extended prostate biopsy scheme improves reliability of Gleason grading: implications for radiotherapy patients.

Authors:  Christopher R King; John E McNeal; Harcharan Gill; Joseph C Presti
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2004-06-01       Impact factor: 7.038

7.  Computer simulation of the probability of detecting low volume carcinoma of the prostate with six random systematic core biopsies.

Authors:  F Daneshgari; G D Taylor; G J Miller; E D Crawford
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  Limitations of biopsy Gleason grade: implications for counseling patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 prostate cancer.

Authors:  Paul D Sved; Pablo Gomez; M Manoharan; Sandy S Kim; Mark S Soloway
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  PSA failure following definitive treatment of prostate cancer having biopsy Gleason score 7 with tertiary grade 5.

Authors:  Abhijit A Patel; Ming-Hui Chen; Andrew A Renshaw; Anthony V D'Amico
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2007-10-03       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  A V D'Amico; R Whittington; S B Malkowicz; D Schultz; K Blank; G A Broderick; J E Tomaszewski; A A Renshaw; I Kaplan; C J Beard; A Wein
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-09-16       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  42 in total

Review 1.  Anatomic and Molecular Imaging in Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Eric T Miller; Amirali Salmasi; Robert E Reiter
Journal:  Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 6.915

2.  Targeted Biopsy to Detect Gleason Score Upgrading during Active Surveillance for Men with Low versus Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer.

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

3.  [Multiparametric MRI and MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy in patients with prior negative prostate biopsy].

Authors:  C Kesch; J P Radtke; F Distler; S Boxler; T Klein; C Hüttenbrink; K Hees; W Roth; M Roethke; H P Schlemmer; M Hohenfellner; B A Hadaschik
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 0.639

4.  Prostate cancer: MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy versus 12-core systematic biopsy.

Authors:  Gauthami Churukanti; Mohummad M Siddiqui
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-06-16       Impact factor: 14.432

5.  Targeted MRI-guided prostate biopsy: are two biopsy cores per MRI-lesion required?

Authors:  L Schimmöller; M Quentin; D Blondin; F Dietzel; A Hiester; C Schleich; C Thomas; R Rabenalt; H E Gabbert; P Albers; G Antoch; C Arsov
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-02-26       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 6.  The Use of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) in the Detection, Evaluation, and Surveillance of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer (csPCa).

Authors:  Parth Patel; Shu Wang; Mohummad Minhaj Siddiqui
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2019-09-02       Impact factor: 3.092

7.  Concordance of Gleason grading with three-dimensional ultrasound systematic biopsy and biopsy core pre-embedding.

Authors:  Anouk A M A van der Aa; Christophe K Mannaerts; Hans van der Linden; Maudy Gayet; Bart Ph Schrier; Massimo Mischi; Harrie P Beerlage; Hessel Wijkstra
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  Personalized prostate cancer screening among men with high risk genetic predisposition- study protocol for a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  David Margel; Ofer Benjaminov; Rachel Ozalvo; Liat Shavit Grievink; Inbal Kedar; Rinat Yerushalmi; Irit Ben-Aharon; Victoria Neiman; Ofer Yossepowitch; Daniel Kedar; Zohar Levy; Mordechai Shohat; Baruch Brenner; Jack Baniel; Eli Rosenbaum
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2014-07-21       Impact factor: 4.430

9.  Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: The role of systematic and targeted biopsies.

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

Review 10.  Multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Baris Turkbey; Anna M Brown; Sandeep Sankineni; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2015-11-23       Impact factor: 508.702

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.