Jan P Radtke1, Timur H Kuru2, Silvan Boxler3, Celine D Alt4, Ionel V Popeneciu1, Clemens Huettenbrink1, Tilman Klein1, Sarah Steinemann1, Claudia Bergstraesser1, Matthias Roethke5, Wilfried Roth6, Heinz-Peter Schlemmer5, Markus Hohenfellner1, Boris A Hadaschik1. 1. Department of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 2. Department of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Department of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; Department of Urology, University Hospital Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 4. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 5. Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 6. Department of Pathology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy may improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. However, standardized prospective evaluation is limited. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 294 consecutive men with suspicion of prostate cancer (186 primary, 108 repeat biopsies) enrolled in 2013 underwent 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (T2-weighted, diffusion weighted, dynamic contrast enhanced) without endorectal coil and systematic transperineal cores (median 24) independently of magnetic resonance imaging suspicion and magnetic resonance imaging targeted cores with software registration (median 4). The highest Gleason score from each biopsy method was compared. McNemar's tests were used to evaluate detection rates. Predictors of Gleason score 7 or greater disease were assessed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall 150 cancers and 86 Gleason score 7 or greater cancers were diagnosed. Systematic, transperineal biopsy missed 18 Gleason score 7 or greater tumors (20.9%) while targeted biopsy did not detect 11 (12.8%). Targeted biopsy of PI-RADS 2-5 alone overlooked 43.8% of Gleason score 6 tumors. McNemar's tests for detection of Gleason score 7 or greater cancers in both modalities were not statistically significant but showed a trend of superiority for targeted primary biopsies (p=0.08). Sampling efficiency was in favor of magnetic resonance imaging targeted prostate biopsy with 46.0% of targeted biopsy vs 7.5% of systematic, transperineal biopsy cores detecting Gleason score 7 or greater cancers. To diagnose 1 Gleason score 7 or greater cancer, 3.4 targeted and 7.4 systematic biopsies were needed. Limiting biopsy to men with PI-RADS 3-5 would have missed 17 Gleason score 7 or greater tumors (19.8%), demonstrating limited magnetic resonance imaging sensitivity. PI-RADS scores, digital rectal examination findings and prostate specific antigen greater than 20 ng/ml were predictors of Gleason score 7 or greater disease. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to systematic, transperineal biopsy as a reference test, magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy alone detected as many Gleason score 7 or greater tumors while simultaneously mitigating the detection of lower grade disease. The gold standard for cancer detection in primary biopsy is a combination of systematic and targeted cores.
PURPOSE: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy may improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. However, standardized prospective evaluation is limited. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 294 consecutive men with suspicion of prostate cancer (186 primary, 108 repeat biopsies) enrolled in 2013 underwent 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (T2-weighted, diffusion weighted, dynamic contrast enhanced) without endorectal coil and systematic transperineal cores (median 24) independently of magnetic resonance imaging suspicion and magnetic resonance imaging targeted cores with software registration (median 4). The highest Gleason score from each biopsy method was compared. McNemar's tests were used to evaluate detection rates. Predictors of Gleason score 7 or greater disease were assessed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall 150 cancers and 86 Gleason score 7 or greater cancers were diagnosed. Systematic, transperineal biopsy missed 18 Gleason score 7 or greater tumors (20.9%) while targeted biopsy did not detect 11 (12.8%). Targeted biopsy of PI-RADS 2-5 alone overlooked 43.8% of Gleason score 6 tumors. McNemar's tests for detection of Gleason score 7 or greater cancers in both modalities were not statistically significant but showed a trend of superiority for targeted primary biopsies (p=0.08). Sampling efficiency was in favor of magnetic resonance imaging targeted prostate biopsy with 46.0% of targeted biopsy vs 7.5% of systematic, transperineal biopsy cores detecting Gleason score 7 or greater cancers. To diagnose 1 Gleason score 7 or greater cancer, 3.4 targeted and 7.4 systematic biopsies were needed. Limiting biopsy to men with PI-RADS 3-5 would have missed 17 Gleason score 7 or greater tumors (19.8%), demonstrating limited magnetic resonance imaging sensitivity. PI-RADS scores, digital rectal examination findings and prostate specific antigen greater than 20 ng/ml were predictors of Gleason score 7 or greater disease. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to systematic, transperineal biopsy as a reference test, magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy alone detected as many Gleason score 7 or greater tumors while simultaneously mitigating the detection of lower grade disease. The gold standard for cancer detection in primary biopsy is a combination of systematic and targeted cores.
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
Authors: Berrend G Muller; Daniel M de Bruin; Willemien van den Bos; Martin J Brandt; Juliette F Velu; Mieke T J Bus; Dirk J Faber; Dilara Savci; Patricia J Zondervan; Theo M de Reijke; Pilar Laguna Pes; Jean de la Rosette; Ton G van Leeuwen Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2015-07-09
Authors: Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Samir S Taneja; Geert Villeirs; Inderbir S Gill; Clare Allen; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore; Veeru Kasivisvanathan Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Aaron Reed; Luca F Valle; Uma Shankavaram; Andra Krauze; Aradhana Kaushal; Erica Schott; Theresa Cooley-Zgela; Bradford Wood; Peter Pinto; Peter Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Deborah E Citrin Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-12-18 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: N Westhoff; F P Siegel; D Hausmann; M Polednik; J von Hardenberg; M S Michel; M Ritter Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-11-09 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: T Franz; J von Hardenberg; A Blana; H Cash; D Baumunk; G Salomon; B Hadaschik; T Henkel; J Herrmann; F Kahmann; K-U Köhrmann; J Köllermann; S Kruck; U-B Liehr; S Machtens; I Peters; J P Radtke; A Roosen; H-P Schlemmer; L Sentker; J J Wendler; U Witzsch; J-U Stolzenburg; M Schostak; R Ganzer Journal: Urologe A Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 0.639