Literature DB >> 24989418

Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted, 3D transrectal ultrasound-guided fusion biopsy for prostate cancer: Quantifying the impact of needle delivery error on diagnosis.

Peter R Martin1, Derek W Cool2, Cesare Romagnoli3, Aaron Fenster4, Aaron D Ward5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted, 3D transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided "fusion" prostate biopsy intends to reduce the ∼23% false negative rate of clinical two-dimensional TRUS-guided sextant biopsy. Although it has been reported to double the positive yield, MRI-targeted biopsies continue to yield false negatives. Therefore, the authors propose to investigate how biopsy system needle delivery error affects the probability of sampling each tumor, by accounting for uncertainties due to guidance system error, image registration error, and irregular tumor shapes.
METHODS: T2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted, and diffusion-weighted prostate MRI and 3D TRUS images were obtained from 49 patients. A radiologist and radiology resident contoured 81 suspicious regions, yielding 3D tumor surfaces that were registered to the 3D TRUS images using an iterative closest point prostate surface-based method to yield 3D binary images of the suspicious regions in the TRUS context. The probabilityP of obtaining a sample of tumor tissue in one biopsy core was calculated by integrating a 3D Gaussian distribution over each suspicious region domain. Next, the authors performed an exhaustive search to determine the maximum root mean squared error (RMSE, in mm) of a biopsy system that gives P ≥ 95% for each tumor sample, and then repeated this procedure for equal-volume spheres corresponding to each tumor sample. Finally, the authors investigated the effect of probe-axis-direction error on measured tumor burden by studying the relationship between the error and estimated percentage of core involvement.
RESULTS: Given a 3.5 mm RMSE for contemporary fusion biopsy systems,P ≥ 95% for 21 out of 81 tumors. The authors determined that for a biopsy system with 3.5 mm RMSE, one cannot expect to sample tumors of approximately 1 cm(3) or smaller with 95% probability with only one biopsy core. The predicted maximum RMSE giving P ≥ 95% for each tumor was consistently greater when using spherical tumor shapes as opposed to no shape assumption. However, an assumption of spherical tumor shape for RMSE = 3.5 mm led to a mean overestimation of tumor sampling probabilities of 3%, implying that assuming spherical tumor shape may be reasonable for many prostate tumors. The authors also determined that a biopsy system would need to have a RMS needle delivery error of no more than 1.6 mm in order to sample 95% of tumors with one core. The authors' experiments also indicated that the effect of axial-direction error on the measured tumor burden was mitigated by the 18 mm core length at 3.5 mm RMSE.
CONCLUSIONS: For biopsy systems with RMSE ≥ 3.5 mm, more than one biopsy core must be taken from the majority of tumors to achieveP ≥ 95%. These observations support the authors' perspective that some tumors of clinically significant sizes may require more than one biopsy attempt in order to be sampled during the first biopsy session. This motivates the authors' ongoing development of an approach to optimize biopsy plans with the aim of achieving a desired probability of obtaining a sample from each tumor, while minimizing the number of biopsies. Optimized planning of within-tumor targets for MRI-3D TRUS fusion biopsy could support earlier diagnosis of prostate cancer while it remains localized to the gland and curable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24989418     DOI: 10.1118/1.4883838

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  8 in total

1.  Safety and Feasibility of Direct Magnetic Resonance Imaging-guided Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Using a Novel Magnetic Resonance Imaging-safe Robotic Device.

Authors:  Mark W Ball; Ashley E Ross; Kamyar Ghabili; Chunwoo Kim; Changhan Jun; Doru Petrisor; Li Pan; Jonathan I Epstein; Katarzyna J Macura; Dan S Stoianovici; Mohamad E Allaf
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2017-07-19       Impact factor: 2.649

2.  Interobserver Reproducibility of the PI-RADS Version 2 Lexicon: A Multicenter Study of Six Experienced Prostate Radiologists.

Authors:  Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Luke A Ginocchio; Daniel Cornfeld; Adam T Froemming; Rajan T Gupta; Baris Turkbey; Antonio C Westphalen; James S Babb; Daniel J Margolis
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-04-01       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 3.  Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy in Patients with a Prior Negative Biopsy: A Consensus Statement by AUA and SAR.

Authors:  Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Sadhna Verma; Peter Choyke; Steven C Eberhardt; Scott E Eggener; Krishnanath Gaitonde; Masoom A Haider; Daniel J Margolis; Leonard S Marks; Peter Pinto; Geoffrey A Sonn; Samir S Taneja
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-06-16       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 4.  The Current State of MR Imaging-targeted Biopsy Techniques for Detection of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Sadhna Verma; Peter L Choyke; Steven C Eberhardt; Aytekin Oto; Clare M Tempany; Baris Turkbey; Andrew B Rosenkrantz
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Comparison of biopsy strategies for prostate biopsy according to lesion size and PSA density in MRI-directed biopsy pathway.

Authors:  Mi Yeon Park; Kye Jin Park; Bumjin Lim; Mi-Hyun Kim; In Gab Jeong; Jeong Kon Kim
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-07-31

6.  A prospective analysis of robotic targeted MRI-US fusion prostate biopsy using the centroid targeting approach.

Authors:  Saiful Miah; Pol Servian; Amit Patel; Catherine Lovegrove; Lindsey Skelton; Taimur T Shah; David Eldred-Evans; Manit Arya; Henry Tam; Hashim U Ahmed; Mathias Winkler
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2019-02-19

7.  MR-targeted TRUS prostate biopsy using local reference augmentation: initial experience.

Authors:  Wendy J M van de Ven; Wulphert Venderink; J P Michiel Sedelaar; Jeroen Veltman; Jelle O Barentsz; Jurgen J Fütterer; Erik B Cornel; Henkjan J Huisman
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2016-04-11       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 8.  Direct magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy of the prostate: lessons learned in establishing a regional referral center.

Authors:  Benjamin Addicott; Bryan R Foster; Chenara Johnson; Alice Fung; Christopher L Amling; Fergus V Coakley
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2017-06
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.