Literature DB >> 25623751

The Role of Magnetic Resonance Image Guided Prostate Biopsy in Stratifying Men for Risk of Extracapsular Extension at Radical Prostatectomy.

Dima Raskolnikov1, Arvin K George1, Soroush Rais-Bahrami1, Baris Turkbey2, M Minhaj Siddiqui1, Nabeel A Shakir1, Chinonyerem Okoro1, Jason T Rothwax1, Annerleim Walton-Diaz1, Sandeep Sankineni2, Daniel Su1, Lambros Stamatakis1, Maria J Merino3, Peter L Choyke2, Bradford J Wood4, Peter A Pinto5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance imaging detects extracapsular extension by prostate cancer with excellent specificity but low sensitivity. This limits surgical planning, which could be modified to account for focal extracapsular extension with image directed guidance for wider excision. In this study we evaluate the performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in extracapsular extension detection and determine which preoperative variables predict extracapsular extension on final pathology when multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging predicts organ confined disease.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From May 2007 to March 2014, 169 patients underwent pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy, extended sextant 12-core biopsy and radical prostatectomy at our institution. A subset of 116 men had multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging negative for extracapsular extension and were included in the final analysis.
RESULTS: The 116 men with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging negative for extracapsular extension had a median age of 61 years (IQR 57-66) and a median prostate specific antigen of 5.51 ng/ml (IQR 3.91-9.07). The prevalence of extracapsular extension was 23.1% in the overall population. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for extracapsular extension were 48.7%, 73.9%, 35.9% and 82.8%, respectively. On multivariate regression analysis only patient age (p=0.002) and magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy Gleason score (p=0.032) were independent predictors of extracapsular extension on final radical prostatectomy pathology.
CONCLUSIONS: Because of the low sensitivity of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for extracapsular extension, further tools are necessary to stratify men at risk for occult extracapsular extension that would otherwise only become apparent on final pathology. Magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy Gleason score can help identify which men with prostate cancer have extracapsular extension that may not be detectable by imaging.
Copyright © 2015 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  adenocarcinoma; neoplasm staging; prognosis; prostate; risk

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25623751      PMCID: PMC7641873          DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.01.072

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


  29 in total

1.  The role of image guided biopsy targeting in patients with atypical small acinar proliferation.

Authors:  Dima Raskolnikov; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Arvin K George; Baris Turkbey; Nabeel A Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Jason T Rothwax; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Daniel Su; Lambros Stamatakis; Pingkun Yan; Jochen Kruecker; Sheng Xu; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2014-08-20       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Prostate cancers scored as Gleason 6 on prostate biopsy are frequently Gleason 7 tumors at radical prostatectomy: implication on outcome.

Authors:  Jehonathan H Pinthus; Maciej Witkos; N E Fleshner; Joan Sweet; Andrew Evans; M A Jewett; Murray Krahn; Shabir Alibhai; John Trachtenberg
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds.

Authors:  Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Vijay Shah; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Marcelino Bernardo; Thomas Pohida; Yuxi Pang; Dagane Daar; Compton Benjamin; Yolanda L McKinney; Hari Trivedi; Celene Chua; Gennady Bratslavsky; Joanna H Shih; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-09-25       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium.

Authors:  A W Partin; L A Mangold; D M Lamm; P C Walsh; J I Epstein; J D Pearson
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 2.649

5.  Comparison of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging, guided prostate biopsy and digital rectal examination in the preoperative anatomical localization of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Michael Mullerad; Hedvig Hricak; Kentaro Kuroiwa; Darko Pucar; Hui-Ni Chen; Michael W Kattan; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Cancer control with radical prostatectomy alone in 1,000 consecutive patients.

Authors:  Gerald W Hull; Farhang Rabbani; Farhat Abbas; Thomas M Wheeler; Michael W Kattan; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and subsequent MRI/ultrasonography fusion-guided biopsy increase the detection of anteriorly located prostate cancers.

Authors:  Dmitry Volkin; Baris Turkbey; Anthony N Hoang; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Nitin Yerram; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Jeffrey W Nix; Bradford J Wood; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2014-10-18       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 8.  Endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging identifies locally advanced prostate cancer in select patients with clinically localized disease.

Authors:  A V D'Amico; M Schnall; R Whittington; S B Malkowicz; D Schultz; J E Tomaszewski; A Wein
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 2.649

9.  Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging.

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

10.  The predictive value of endorectal 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for extraprostatic extension in patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  D M Somford; E H Hamoen; J J Fütterer; J P van Basten; C A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; W Vreuls; I M van Oort; H Vergunst; L A Kiemeney; J O Barentsz; J A Witjes
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2013-05-13       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  25 in total

Review 1.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Prostate Biopsy: Review of Technology, Techniques, and Outcomes.

Authors:  Michael Kongnyuy; Arvin K George; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  Prostate cancer: Can image-guided biopsy findings evaluate risk of ECE?

Authors:  Daniel Portalez; Bernard Malavaud
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-05-05       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 3.  Techniques and Outcomes of MRI-TRUS Fusion Prostate Biopsy.

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

4.  Multimodal Imaging in Focal Therapy Planning and Assessment in Primary Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Hossein Jadvar
Journal:  Clin Transl Imaging       Date:  2017-04-10

Review 5.  MR/US Fusion Technology: What Makes It Tick?

Authors:  Srinivas Vourganti; Norman Starkweather; Andrij Wojtowycz
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 6.  Optimizing Patient Population for MP-MRI and Fusion Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Detection.

Authors:  Thomas P Frye; Peter A Pinto; Arvin K George
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 7.  Risk stratification of prostate cancer: integrating multiparametric MRI, nomograms and biomarkers.

Authors:  Matthew J Watson; Arvin K George; Mahir Maruf; Thomas P Frye; Akhil Muthigi; Michael Kongnyuy; Subin G Valayil; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  Future Oncol       Date:  2016-07-12       Impact factor: 3.404

Review 8.  Spatial Tracking of Targeted Prostate Biopsy Locations: Moving Towards Effective Focal Partial Prostate Gland Ablation with Improved Treatment Planning.

Authors:  Steven Sidelsky; Shaan Setia; Srinivas Vourganti
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-10-18       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 9.  Developing a National Center of Excellence for Prostate Imaging.

Authors:  Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Manuel Madariaga-Venegas; Nicolas Aviles; Juan Carlos Roman; Ivan Gallegos; Mauricio Burotto
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2019-09-02       Impact factor: 3.092

10.  A urologist's perspective on prostate cancer imaging: past, present, and future.

Authors:  Arvin K George; Baris Turkbey; Subin G Valayil; Akhil Muthigi; Francesca Mertan; Michael Kongnyuy; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2016-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.