OBJECTIVE: To compare cancer detection rates and concordance between magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound (MRI-US) fusion-guided prostate biopsy cores obtained from axial and sagittal approaches. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Institutional records of MRI-US fusion-guided biopsy were reviewed. Detection rates for all cancers, Gleason ≥3 + 4 cancers, and Gleason ≥4 + 3 cancers were computed. Agreement between axial and sagittal cores for cancer detection, and frequency where one was upgraded the other was computed on a per-target and per-patient basis. RESULTS: In all, 893 encounters from 791 patients that underwent MRI-US fusion-guided biopsy in 2007-2013 were reviewed, yielding 4688 biopsy cores from 2344 targets for analysis. The mean age and PSA level at each encounter was 61.8 years and 9.7 ng/mL (median 6.45 ng/mL). Detection rates for all cancers, ≥3 + 4 cancers, and ≥4 + 3 cancers were 25.9%, 17.2%, and 8.1% for axial cores, and 26.1%, 17.6%, and 8.6% for sagittal cores. Per-target agreement was 88.6%, 93.0%, and 96.5%, respectively. On a per-target basis, the rates at which one core upgraded or detected a cancer missed on the other were 8.3% and 8.6% for axial and sagittal cores, respectively. Even with the inclusion of systematic biopsies, omission of axial or sagittal cores would have resulted in missed detection or under-characterisation of cancer in 4.7% or 5.2% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Cancer detection rates, Gleason scores, and core involvement from axial and sagittal cores are similar, but significant cancer may be missed if only one core is obtained for each target. Discordance between axial and sagittal cores is greatest in intermediate-risk scenarios, where obtaining multiple cores may improve tissue characterisation. Published 2014. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
OBJECTIVE: To compare cancer detection rates and concordance between magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound (MRI-US) fusion-guided prostate biopsy cores obtained from axial and sagittal approaches. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Institutional records of MRI-US fusion-guided biopsy were reviewed. Detection rates for all cancers, Gleason ≥3 + 4 cancers, and Gleason ≥4 + 3 cancers were computed. Agreement between axial and sagittal cores for cancer detection, and frequency where one was upgraded the other was computed on a per-target and per-patient basis. RESULTS: In all, 893 encounters from 791 patients that underwent MRI-US fusion-guided biopsy in 2007-2013 were reviewed, yielding 4688 biopsy cores from 2344 targets for analysis. The mean age and PSA level at each encounter was 61.8 years and 9.7 ng/mL (median 6.45 ng/mL). Detection rates for all cancers, ≥3 + 4 cancers, and ≥4 + 3 cancers were 25.9%, 17.2%, and 8.1% for axial cores, and 26.1%, 17.6%, and 8.6% for sagittal cores. Per-target agreement was 88.6%, 93.0%, and 96.5%, respectively. On a per-target basis, the rates at which one core upgraded or detected a cancer missed on the other were 8.3% and 8.6% for axial and sagittal cores, respectively. Even with the inclusion of systematic biopsies, omission of axial or sagittal cores would have resulted in missed detection or under-characterisation of cancer in 4.7% or 5.2% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION:Cancer detection rates, Gleason scores, and core involvement from axial and sagittal cores are similar, but significant cancer may be missed if only one core is obtained for each target. Discordance between axial and sagittal cores is greatest in intermediate-risk scenarios, where obtaining multiple cores may improve tissue characterisation. Published 2014. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
Entities:
Keywords:
fusion biopsy; multiparametric MRI; prostate cancer
Authors: Kareem N Rayn; Jonathan B Bloom; Samuel A Gold; Graham R Hale; Joseph A Baiocco; Sherif Mehralivand; Marcin Czarniecki; Vikram K Sabarwal; Vladimir Valera; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Clayton P Smith; Stephanie A Harmon; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo K Bittencourt; Yan Mee Law; Haytham Shebel; Julie Y An; Marcin Czarniecki; Sherif Mehralivand; Mehmet Coskun; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Joanna H Shih; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Michael Kongnyuy; Abhinav Sidana; Arvin K George; Akhil Muthigi; Amogh Iyer; Michele Fascelli; Meet Kadakia; Thomas P Frye; Richard Ho; Francesca Mertan; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Daniel Su; Maria J Merino; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2016-02-20 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Akhil Muthigi; Arvin K George; Abhinav Sidana; Michael Kongnyuy; Richard Simon; Vanessa Moreno; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-08-28 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Dima Raskolnikov; Arvin K George; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Nabeel A Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Jason T Rothwax; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Sandeep Sankineni; Daniel Su; Lambros Stamatakis; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-01-23 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Chinonyerem Okoro; Arvin K George; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Nabeel A Shakir; Jason T Rothwax; Dima Raskolnikov; Lambros Stamatakis; Daniel Su; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Maria J Merino; Howard L Parnes; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Endourol Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Berrend G Muller; Aradhana Kaushal; Sandeep Sankineni; Elena Lita; Anthony N Hoang; Arvin K George; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Jochen Kruecker; Pingkun Yan; Sheng Xu; Jean J de la Rosette; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2015-08-08 Impact factor: 3.498