Tobias Penzkofer1, Kemal Tuncali, Andriy Fedorov, Sang-Eun Song, Junichi Tokuda, Fiona M Fennessy, Mark G Vangel, Adam S Kibel, Robert V Mulkern, William M Wells, Nobuhiko Hata, Clare M C Tempany. 1. From the Division of MRI in the Department of Radiology (T.P., K.T., A.F., S.S., J.T., F.M.F., R.V.M., W.M.W., N.H., C.M.C.T.) and the Division of Urology (A.S.K.), Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115; Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany (T.P.). Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (M.G.V.); Department of Radiology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Mass (F.M.F.); and Department of Radiology, Children's Hospital, Boston, Mass (R.V.M.).
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the detection rate, clinical relevance, Gleason grade, and location of prostate cancer ( PCa prostate cancer ) diagnosed with and the safety of an in-bore transperineal 3-T magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-guided prostate biopsy in a clinically heterogeneous patient population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective retrospectively analyzed study was HIPAA compliant and institutional review board approved, and informed consent was obtained. Eighty-seven men (mean age, 66.2 years ± 6.9) underwent multiparametric endorectal prostate MR imaging at 3 T and transperineal MR imaging-guided biopsy. Three subgroups of patients with at least one lesion suspicious for cancer were included: men with no prior PCa prostate cancer diagnosis, men with PCa prostate cancer who were undergoing active surveillance, and men with treated PCa prostate cancer and suspected recurrence. Exclusion criteria were prior prostatectomy and/or contraindication to 3-T MR imaging. The transperineal MR imaging-guided biopsy was performed in a 70-cm wide-bore 3-T device. Overall patient biopsy outcomes, cancer detection rates, Gleason grade, and location for each subgroup were evaluated and statistically compared by using χ(2) and one-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey honestly significant difference post hoc comparisons. RESULTS: Ninety biopsy procedures were performed with no serious adverse events, with a mean of 3.7 targets sampled per gland. Cancer was detected in 51 (56.7%) men: 48.1% (25 of 52) with no prior PCa prostate cancer , 61.5% (eight of 13) under active surveillance, and 72.0% (18 of 25) in whom recurrence was suspected. Gleason pattern 4 or higher was diagnosed in 78.1% (25 of 32) in the no prior PCa prostate cancer and active surveillance groups. Gleason scores were not assigned in the suspected recurrence group. MR targets located in the anterior prostate had the highest cancer yield (40 of 64, 62.5%) compared with those for the other parts of the prostate (P < .001). CONCLUSION: In-bore 3-T transperineal MR imaging-guided biopsy, with a mean of 3.7 targets per gland, allowed detection of many clinically relevant cancers, many of which were located anteriorly.
PURPOSE: To determine the detection rate, clinical relevance, Gleason grade, and location of prostate cancer ( PCa prostate cancer ) diagnosed with and the safety of an in-bore transperineal 3-T magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-guided prostate biopsy in a clinically heterogeneous patient population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective retrospectively analyzed study was HIPAA compliant and institutional review board approved, and informed consent was obtained. Eighty-seven men (mean age, 66.2 years ± 6.9) underwent multiparametric endorectal prostate MR imaging at 3 T and transperineal MR imaging-guided biopsy. Three subgroups of patients with at least one lesion suspicious for cancer were included: men with no prior PCa prostate cancer diagnosis, men with PCa prostate cancer who were undergoing active surveillance, and men with treated PCa prostate cancer and suspected recurrence. Exclusion criteria were prior prostatectomy and/or contraindication to 3-T MR imaging. The transperineal MR imaging-guided biopsy was performed in a 70-cm wide-bore 3-T device. Overall patient biopsy outcomes, cancer detection rates, Gleason grade, and location for each subgroup were evaluated and statistically compared by using χ(2) and one-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey honestly significant difference post hoc comparisons. RESULTS: Ninety biopsy procedures were performed with no serious adverse events, with a mean of 3.7 targets sampled per gland. Cancer was detected in 51 (56.7%) men: 48.1% (25 of 52) with no prior PCa prostate cancer , 61.5% (eight of 13) under active surveillance, and 72.0% (18 of 25) in whom recurrence was suspected. Gleason pattern 4 or higher was diagnosed in 78.1% (25 of 32) in the no prior PCa prostate cancer and active surveillance groups. Gleason scores were not assigned in the suspected recurrence group. MR targets located in the anterior prostate had the highest cancer yield (40 of 64, 62.5%) compared with those for the other parts of the prostate (P < .001). CONCLUSION: In-bore 3-T transperineal MR imaging-guided biopsy, with a mean of 3.7 targets per gland, allowed detection of many clinically relevant cancers, many of which were located anteriorly.
Authors: Axel Krieger; Iulian I Iordachita; Peter Guion; Anurag K Singh; Aradhana Kaushal; Cynthia Ménard; Peter A Pinto; Kevin Camphausen; Gabor Fichtinger; Louis L Whitcomb Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Caroline M Moore; Nicola L Robertson; Nasr Arsanious; Thomas Middleton; Arnauld Villers; Laurence Klotz; Samir S Taneja; Mark Emberton Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-06-13 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Osama M Zaytoun; Ethan H Vargo; Ramanathan Rajan; Ryan Berglund; Steven Gordon; J Stephen Jones Journal: Urology Date: 2011-03-21 Impact factor: 2.649
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: Adam W Nelson; Rebecca C Harvey; Richard A Parker; Christof Kastner; Andrew Doble; Vincent J Gnanapragasam Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-02-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Christian Herz; Kyle MacNeil; Peter A Behringer; Junichi Tokuda; Alireza Mehrtash; Parvin Mousavi; Ron Kikinis; Fiona M Fennessy; Clare M Tempany; Kemal Tuncali; Andriy Fedorov Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Alireza Mehrtash; Mehran Pesteie; Jorden Hetherington; Peter A Behringer; Tina Kapur; William M Wells; Robert Rohling; Andriy Fedorov; Purang Abolmaesumi Journal: Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng Date: 2017-03-03
Authors: Elizabeth C Randall; Giorgia Zadra; Paolo Chetta; Begona G C Lopez; Sudeepa Syamala; Sankha S Basu; Jeffrey N Agar; Massimo Loda; Clare M Tempany; Fiona M Fennessy; Nathalie Y R Agar Journal: Mol Cancer Res Date: 2019-02-11 Impact factor: 5.852
Authors: Andriy Fedorov; Kemal Tuncali; Lawrence P Panych; Janice Fairhurst; Elmira Hassanzadeh; Ravi T Seethamraju; Clare M Tempany; Stephan E Maier Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-05-27 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Pelin Aksit Ciris; Mukund Balasubramanian; Ravi T Seethamraju; Junichi Tokuda; Jonathan Scalera; Tobias Penzkofer; Fiona M Fennessy; Clare M Tempany-Afdhal; Kemal Tuncali; Robert V Mulkern Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2016-05-31 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Elmira Hassanzadeh; Daniel I Glazer; Ruth M Dunne; Fiona M Fennessy; Mukesh G Harisinghani; Clare M Tempany Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2017-01
Authors: Peter A Behringer; Christian Herz; Tobias Penzkofer; Kemal Tuncali; Clare M Tempany; Andriy Fedorov Journal: Clin Image Based Proced Date: 2016-03-23