Eduard Baco1, Osamu Ukimura2, Erik Rud3, Ljiljana Vlatkovic4, Aud Svindland4, Manju Aron5, Suzanne Palmer6, Toru Matsugasumi2, Arnaud Marien7, Jean-Christophe Bernhard8, John C Rewcastle2, Heidi B Eggesbø9, Inderbir S Gill2. 1. Division for Cancer Medicine, Surgery, and Transplantation, Department of Urology, Oslo University Hospital Aker, Oslo, Norway; USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Electronic address: eduard.baco@medisin.uio.no. 2. USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Oslo University Hospital Aker, Oslo, Norway. 4. Department of Pathology, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 5. Department of Pathology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA. 7. USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Lille, France. 8. USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Chirurgie Urologique et Transplantation rénale - CHU Bordeaux, INSERM U1029 - Université Bordeaux I, France. 9. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prostate biopsies targeted by elastic fusion of magnetic resonance (MR) and three-dimensional (3D) transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) images may allow accurate identification of the index tumor (IT), defined as the lesion with the highest Gleason score or the largest volume or extraprostatic extension. OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of MR-TRUS image-fusion biopsy in characterizing ITs, as confirmed by correlation with step-sectioned radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective analysis of 135 consecutive patients who sequentially underwent pre-biopsy MR, MR-TRUS image-fusion biopsy, and robotic RP at two centers between January 2010 and September 2013. INTERVENTION: Image-guided biopsies of MR-suspected IT lesions were performed with tracking via real-time 3D TRUS. The largest geographically distinct cancer focus (IT lesion) was independently registered on step-sectioned RP specimens. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: A validated schema comprising 27 regions of interest was used to identify the IT center location on MR images and in RP specimens, as well as the location of the midpoint of the biopsy trajectory, and variables were correlated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The concordance between IT location on biopsy and RP specimens was 95% (128/135). The coefficient for correlation between IT volume on MRI and histology was r=0.663 (p<0.001). The maximum cancer core length on biopsy was weakly correlated with RP tumor volume (r=0.466, p<0.001). The concordance of primary Gleason pattern between targeted biopsy and RP specimens was 90% (115/128; κ=0.76). The study limitations include retrospective evaluation of a selected patient population, which limits the generalizability of the results. CONCLUSION: Use of MR-TRUS image fusion to guide prostate biopsies reliably identified the location and primary Gleason pattern of the IT lesion in >90% of patients, but showed limited ability to predict cancer volume, as confirmed by step-sectioned RP specimens. PATIENT SUMMARY: Biopsies targeted using magnetic resonance images combined with real-time three-dimensional transrectal ultrasound allowed us to reliably identify the spatial location of the most important tumor in prostate cancer and characterize its aggressiveness.
BACKGROUND: Prostate biopsies targeted by elastic fusion of magnetic resonance (MR) and three-dimensional (3D) transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) images may allow accurate identification of the index tumor (IT), defined as the lesion with the highest Gleason score or the largest volume or extraprostatic extension. OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of MR-TRUS image-fusion biopsy in characterizing ITs, as confirmed by correlation with step-sectioned radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective analysis of 135 consecutive patients who sequentially underwent pre-biopsy MR, MR-TRUS image-fusion biopsy, and robotic RP at two centers between January 2010 and September 2013. INTERVENTION: Image-guided biopsies of MR-suspected IT lesions were performed with tracking via real-time 3D TRUS. The largest geographically distinct cancer focus (IT lesion) was independently registered on step-sectioned RP specimens. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: A validated schema comprising 27 regions of interest was used to identify the IT center location on MR images and in RP specimens, as well as the location of the midpoint of the biopsy trajectory, and variables were correlated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The concordance between IT location on biopsy and RP specimens was 95% (128/135). The coefficient for correlation between IT volume on MRI and histology was r=0.663 (p<0.001). The maximum cancer core length on biopsy was weakly correlated with RP tumor volume (r=0.466, p<0.001). The concordance of primary Gleason pattern between targeted biopsy and RP specimens was 90% (115/128; κ=0.76). The study limitations include retrospective evaluation of a selected patient population, which limits the generalizability of the results. CONCLUSION: Use of MR-TRUS image fusion to guide prostate biopsies reliably identified the location and primary Gleason pattern of the IT lesion in >90% of patients, but showed limited ability to predict cancer volume, as confirmed by step-sectioned RP specimens. PATIENT SUMMARY: Biopsies targeted using magnetic resonance images combined with real-time three-dimensional transrectal ultrasound allowed us to reliably identify the spatial location of the most important tumor in prostate cancer and characterize its aggressiveness.
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: Carsten-H Ohlmann; Michael Stöckle; Peter Albers; Heinz Schmidberger; Martin Härter; Glen Kristiansen; Peter Martus; Stefan Wellek; Roswitha Bussar-Maatz; Thomas Wiegel Journal: Urologe A Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: B J King; T K Mann-Gow; M Kida; M K Plante; S D Perrapato; P Zvara Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2015-05-26 Impact factor: 5.554
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: Masatomo Kaneko; Dordaneh Sugano; Amir H Lebastchi; Vinay Duddalwar; Jamal Nabhani; Christopher Haiman; Inderbir S Gill; Giovanni E Cacciamani; Andre Luis Abreu Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 3.092
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
Authors: U B Liehr; D Baumunk; S Blaschke; F Fischbach; B Friebe; F König; A Lemke; P Mittelstädt; M Pech; M Porsch; J Ricke; D Schindele; S Siedentopf; J J Wendler; M Schostak Journal: Radiologe Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 0.635