Literature DB >> 25451832

Impact of real-time elastography on magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided biopsy in patients with prior negative prostate biopsies.

Marko Brock1, Björn Löppenberg1, Florian Roghmann1, Alexandré Pelzer2, Martin Dickmann2, Wolfgang Becker3, Philipp Martin-Seidel3, Florian Sommerer4, Lena Schenk1, Rein Jüri Palisaar1, Joachim Noldus1, Christian von Bodman1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The fusion of multiparametric resonance imaging and ultrasound has been proven capable of detecting prostate cancer in different biopsy settings. The addition of real-time elastography promises to increase the precision of the outcome of targeted biopsies. We investigated whether real-time elastography improves magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy in patients after previous negative biopsies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospectively 121 men underwent 3T magnetic resonance imaging. Using magnetic resonance imaging/real-time elastography fusion every suspicious lesion was characterized according to its tissue density and sampled by 2 fusion guided targeted biopsies. Additionally, all patients underwent 12-core systematic biopsy. The detection rate of clinically significant and insignificant cancers was compared between targeted und systematic biopsies. The accuracy to predict high grade prostate cancer was evaluated for with the PI-RADS scoring system and compared to the magnetic resonance imaging/real-time elastography fusion score.
RESULTS: Overall prostate cancer was detected in 52 patients (43%). Targeted fusion guided biopsy revealed prostate cancer in 32 men (26.4%) and systematic biopsy in 46 (38%). The proportion of clinically significant cancers was higher for targeted biopsy (90.6%) compared to systematic biopsy (73.9%). The detection rate per core was higher for targeted biopsies (14.7%) compared to systematic biopsies (6.5%, p <0.001). The prediction of biopsy result according to magnetic resonance imaging/real-time elastography fusion was better (AUC 0.86) than magnetic resonance imaging alone (AUC 0.79). Sensitivity and specificity for magnetic resonance imaging/real-time elastography fusion was 77.8% and 77.3% vs 74.1% and 62.9% for magnetic resonance imaging.
CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion enhances the likelihood of detecting clinically significant cancers in a repeat biopsy setting. Adding real-time elastography to magnetic resonance imaging supports the characterization of cancer suspicious lesions.
Copyright © 2015 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biopsy; elasticity imaging techniques; fusion; magnetic resonance imaging; prostatic neoplasms

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25451832     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.10.106

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  16 in total

1.  The detection of significant prostate cancer is correlated with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) in MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy.

Authors:  Hannes Cash; Andreas Maxeiner; Carsten Stephan; Thomas Fischer; Tahir Durmus; Josephine Holzmann; Patrick Asbach; Matthias Haas; Stefan Hinz; Jörg Neymeyer; Kurt Miller; Karsten Günzel; Carsten Kempkensteffen
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-08-21       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 2.  Clinical practice guidelines for ultrasound elastography: prostate.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 1.314

3.  Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment using multiparametric transrectal ultrasonography.

Authors:  Koji Okihara
Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 1.314

4.  Assessment of elastographic Q-analysis score combined with Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) based on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)/multi-parameter magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) fusion-guided biopsy in differentiating benign and malignant prostate.

Authors:  Hongtian Tian; Zhimin Ding; Huaiyu Wu; Keen Yang; Di Song; Jinfeng Xu; Fajin Dong
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2022-07

Review 5.  Application of Multiple Ultrasonic Techniques in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Yushan Liu; Shi Zeng; Ran Xu
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-06-27       Impact factor: 5.738

6.  National Survey of Patterns Employing Targeted MRI/US Guided Prostate Biopsy in the Diagnosis and Staging of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Graham M Tooker; Hong Truong; Peter A Pinto; Minhaj M Siddiqui
Journal:  Curr Urol       Date:  2019-03-08

Review 7.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: A review and update for urologists.

Authors:  Sangjun Yoo; Jeong Kon Kim; In Gab Jeong
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2015-06-30

Review 8.  A Review of Imaging Methods for Prostate Cancer Detection.

Authors:  Saradwata Sarkar; Sudipta Das
Journal:  Biomed Eng Comput Biol       Date:  2016-03-02

9.  A positive Real-Time Elastography (RTE) combined with a Prostate Cancer Gene 3 (PCA3) score above 35 convey a high probability of intermediate- or high-risk prostate cancer in patient admitted for primary prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Yngve Nygård; Svein A Haukaas; Ole J Halvorsen; Karsten Gravdal; Jannicke Frugård; Lars A Akslen; Christian Beisland
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 2.264

10.  Is magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy better than systematic prostate biopsy? An updated meta- and trial sequential analysis.

Authors:  Jian Wu; Alin Ji; Bo Xie; Xiao Wang; Yi Zhu; Junyuan Wang; Yasai Yu; Xiangyi Zheng; Ben Liu; Liping Xie
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2015-12-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.