Literature DB >> 25626035

Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

M Minhaj Siddiqui1, Soroush Rais-Bahrami2, Baris Turkbey3, Arvin K George4, Jason Rothwax4, Nabeel Shakir4, Chinonyerem Okoro4, Dima Raskolnikov4, Howard L Parnes5, W Marston Linehan4, Maria J Merino6, Richard M Simon7, Peter L Choyke3, Bradford J Wood8, Peter A Pinto8.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Targeted magnetic resonance (MR)/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy has been shown to detect prostate cancer. The implications of targeted biopsy alone vs standard extended-sextant biopsy or the 2 modalities combined are not well understood.
OBJECTIVE: To assess targeted vs standard biopsy and the 2 approaches combined for the diagnosis of intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective cohort study of 1003 men undergoing both targeted and standard biopsy concurrently from 2007 through 2014 at the National Cancer Institute in the United States. Patients were referred for elevated level of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) or abnormal digital rectal examination results, often with prior negative biopsy results. Risk categorization was compared among targeted and standard biopsy and, when available, whole-gland pathology after prostatectomy as the "gold standard."
INTERVENTIONS: Patients underwent multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging to identify regions of prostate cancer suspicion followed by targeted MR/ultrasound fusion biopsy and concurrent standard biopsy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary objective was to compare targeted and standard biopsy approaches for detection of high-risk prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥ 4 + 3); secondary end points focused on detection of low-risk prostate cancer (Gleason score 3 + 3 or low-volume 3 + 4) and the biopsy ability to predict whole-gland pathology at prostatectomy.
RESULTS: Targeted MR/ultrasound fusion biopsy diagnosed 461 prostate cancer cases, and standard biopsy diagnosed 469 cases. There was exact agreement between targeted and standard biopsy in 690 men (69%) undergoing biopsy. Targeted biopsy diagnosed 30% more high-risk cancers vs standard biopsy (173 vs 122 cases, P < .001) and 17% fewer low-risk cancers (213 vs 258 cases, P < .001). When standard biopsy cores were combined with the targeted approach, an additional 103 cases (22%) of mostly low-risk prostate cancer were diagnosed (83% low risk, 12% intermediate risk, and 5% high risk). The predictive ability of targeted biopsy for differentiating low-risk from intermediate- and high-risk disease in 170 men with whole-gland pathology after prostatectomy was greater than that of standard biopsy or the 2 approaches combined (area under the curve, 0.73, 0.59, and 0.67, respectively; P < .05 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among men undergoing biopsy for suspected prostate cancer, targeted MR/ultrasound fusion biopsy, compared with standard extended-sextant ultrasound-guided biopsy, was associated with increased detection of high-risk prostate cancer and decreased detection of low-risk prostate cancer. Future studies will be needed to assess the ultimate clinical implications of targeted biopsy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00102544.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25626035      PMCID: PMC4572575          DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.17942

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  27 in total

1.  Closed-loop control in fused MR-TRUS image-guided prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Sheng Xu; Jochen Kruecker; Peter Guion; Neil Glossop; Ziv Neeman; Peter Choyke; Anurag K Singh; Bradford J Wood
Journal:  Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv       Date:  2007

2.  Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group.

Authors:  Caroline M Moore; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Scott Eggener; Mark Emberton; Jurgen J Fütterer; Inderbir S Gill; Robert L Grubb Iii; Boris Hadaschik; Laurence Klotz; Daniel J A Margolis; Leonard S Marks; Jonathan Melamed; Aytekin Oto; Suzanne L Palmer; Peter Pinto; Philippe Puech; Shonit Punwani; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Ivo G Schoots; Richard Simon; Samir S Taneja; Baris Turkbey; Osamu Ukimura; Jan van der Meulen; Arnauld Villers; Yuji Watanabe
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2013-03-20       Impact factor: 20.096

3.  Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion device.

Authors:  Geoffrey A Sonn; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J A Margolis; Malu MacAiran; Patricia Lieu; Jiaoti Huang; Frederick J Dorey; Leonard S Marks
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2012-11-14       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  A qualitative approach to combined magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Geert M Villeirs; Willem Oosterlinck; Els Vanherreweghe; Gert O De Meerleer
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2008-12-11       Impact factor: 3.528

5.  Outcomes of initially expectantly managed patients with low or intermediate risk screen-detected localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Meelan Bul; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Xiaoye Zhu; Antti Rannikko; Hanna Vasarainen; Chris H Bangma; Fritz H Schröder; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2012-08-29       Impact factor: 5.588

6.  Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3?

Authors:  Jennifer R Stark; Sven Perner; Meir J Stampfer; Jennifer A Sinnott; Stephen Finn; Anna S Eisenstein; Jing Ma; Michelangelo Fiorentino; Tobias Kurth; Massimo Loda; Edward L Giovannucci; Mark A Rubin; Lorelei A Mucci
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-05-11       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI for localization of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Masoom A Haider; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Jeff Tanguay; Andrew J Evans; Ali-Tahir Hashmi; Gina Lockwood; John Trachtenberg
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Prostate cancer: can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance?

Authors:  Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Omer Aras; Jennifer Ho; Anthony Hoang; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Harsh Agarwal; Vijay Shah; Marcelino Bernardo; Yuxi Pang; Dagane Daar; Yolanda L McKinney; W Marston Linehan; Aradhana Kaushal; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Laurence Klotz; Liying Zhang; Adam Lam; Robert Nam; Alexandre Mamedov; Andrew Loblaw
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-11-16       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Low suspicion lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging predict for the absence of high-risk prostate cancer.

Authors:  Nitin K Yerram; Dmitry Volkin; Baris Turkbey; Jeffrey Nix; Anthony N Hoang; Srinivas Vourganti; Gopal N Gupta; W Marston Linehan; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2012-11-06       Impact factor: 5.588

View more
  430 in total

1.  Accuracy and agreement of PIRADSv2 for prostate cancer mpMRI: A multireader study.

Authors:  Matthew D Greer; Anna M Brown; Joanna H Shih; Ronald M Summers; Jamie Marko; Yan Mee Law; Sandeep Sankineni; Arvin K George; Maria J Merino; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 4.813

2.  Detection and grading of prostate cancer using temporal enhanced ultrasound: combining deep neural networks and tissue mimicking simulations.

Authors:  Shekoofeh Azizi; Sharareh Bayat; Pingkun Yan; Amir Tahmasebi; Guy Nir; Jin Tae Kwak; Sheng Xu; Storey Wilson; Kenneth A Iczkowski; M Scott Lucia; Larry Goldenberg; Septimiu E Salcudean; Peter A Pinto; Bradford Wood; Purang Abolmaesumi; Parvin Mousavi
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2017-06-20       Impact factor: 2.924

3.  Multiparametric MRI for the detection of local recurrence of prostate cancer in the setting of biochemical recurrence after low dose rate brachytherapy.

Authors:  Luca F Valle; Matthew D Greer; Joanna H Shih; Tristan Barrett; Yan Mee Law; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Haytham Shebel; Akhil Muthigi; Daniel Su; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Andra V Krauze; Aradhana Kaushal; Peter L Choyke; Barış Türkbey; Deborah E Citrin
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2018 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.630

4.  Can Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values Assist PI-RADS Version 2 DWI Scoring? A Correlation Study Using the PI-RADSv2 and International Society of Urological Pathology Systems.

Authors:  Sonia Gaur; Stephanie Harmon; Lauren Rosenblum; Matthew D Greer; Sherif Mehralivand; Mehmet Coskun; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Joanna H Shih; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2018-05-07       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Fusion prostate biopsy outperforms 12-core systematic prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative systematic biopsy: A multi-institutional analysis.

Authors:  Abhinav Sidana; Matthew J Watson; Arvin K George; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Srinivas Vourganti; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Akhil Muthigi; Mahir Maruf; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Jeffrey W Nix; Maria J Merino; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2018-05-10       Impact factor: 3.498

6.  Evaluating the size criterion for PI-RADSv2 category 5 upgrade: is 15 mm the best threshold?

Authors:  Julie Y An; Stephanie A Harmon; Sherif Mehralivand; Marcin Czarniecki; Clayton P Smith; Julie A Peretti; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Joanna H Shih; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2018-12

Review 7.  Restriction spectrum imaging: An evolving imaging biomarker in prostate MRI.

Authors:  Ryan L Brunsing; Natalie M Schenker-Ahmed; Nathan S White; J Kellogg Parsons; Christopher Kane; Joshua Kuperman; Hauke Bartsch; Andrew Karim Kader; Rebecca Rakow-Penner; Tyler M Seibert; Daniel Margolis; Steven S Raman; Carrie R McDonald; Nikdokht Farid; Santosh Kesari; Donna Hansel; Ahmed Shabaik; Anders M Dale; David S Karow
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2016-08-16       Impact factor: 4.813

8.  Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Steering Committee: PI-RADS v2 Status Update and Future Directions.

Authors:  Anwar R Padhani; Jeffrey Weinreb; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Geert Villeirs; Baris Turkbey; Jelle Barentsz
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2018-06-13       Impact factor: 20.096

9.  Value of MRI in medicine: More than just another test?

Authors:  Edwin J R van Beek; Christiane Kuhl; Yoshimi Anzai; Patricia Desmond; Richard L Ehman; Qiyong Gong; Garry Gold; Vikas Gulani; Margaret Hall-Craggs; Tim Leiner; C C Tschoyoson Lim; James G Pipe; Scott Reeder; Caroline Reinhold; Marion Smits; Daniel K Sodickson; Clare Tempany; H Alberto Vargas; Meiyun Wang
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2018-08-25       Impact factor: 4.813

Review 10.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: current evidence and contemporary state of practice.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Tosoian; H Ballentine Carter; Abbey Lepor; Stacy Loeb
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 14.432

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.