Osamu Ukimura1, Arnaud Marien2, Suzanne Palmer3, Arnauld Villers2, Manju Aron4, Andre Luis de Castro Abreu2, Scott Leslie2, Sunao Shoji2, Toru Matsugasumi2, Mitchell Gross2, Prokar Dasgupta5, Inderbir S Gill2. 1. USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 1441 Eastlake Ave, Suite 7416, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, USA. ukimura@usc.edu. 2. USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 1441 Eastlake Ave, Suite 7416, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, USA. 4. Department of Pathology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, USA. 5. Department of Urology, King's College London, London, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic yield of targeted prostate biopsy using image-fusion of multi-parametric magnetic resonance (mp-MR) with real-time trans-rectal ultrasound (TRUS) for clinically significant lesions that are suspicious only on mp-MR versus lesions that are suspicious on both mp-MR and TRUS. METHODS: Pre-biopsy MRI and TRUS were each scaled on a 3-point score: highly suspicious, likely, and unlikely for clinically significant cancer (sPCa). Using an MR-TRUS elastic image-fusion system (Koelis), a 127 consecutive patients with a suspicious clinically significant index lesion on pre-biopsy mp-MR underwent systematic biopsies and MR/US-fusion targeted biopsies (01/2010-09/2013). Biopsy histological outcomes were retrospectively compared with MR suspicion level and TRUS-visibility of the MR-suspicious lesion. sPCa was defined as biopsy Gleason score ≥7 and/or maximum cancer core length ≥5 mm. RESULTS: Targeted biopsies outperformed systematic biopsies in overall cancer detection rate (61 vs. 41 %; p = 0.007), sPCa detection rate (43 vs. 23 %; p = 0.0013), cancer core length (7.5 vs. 3.9 mm; p = 0.0002), and cancer rate per core (56 vs. 12 %; p < 0.0001), respectively. Highly suspicious lesions on mp-MR correlated with higher positive biopsy rate (p < 0.0001), higher Gleason score (p = 0.018), and greater cancer core length (p < 0.0001). Highly suspicious lesions on TRUS in corresponding to MR-suspicious lesion had a higher biopsy yield (p < 0.0001) and higher sPCa detection rate (p < 0.0001). Since majority of MR-suspicious lesions were also suspicious on TRUS, TRUS-visibility allowed selection of the specific MR-visible lesion which should be targeted from among the multiple TRUS suspicious lesions in each prostate. CONCLUSIONS: MR-TRUS fusion-image-guided biopsies outperformed systematic biopsies. TRUS-visibility of a MR-suspicious lesion facilitates image-guided biopsies, resulting in higher detection of significant cancer.
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic yield of targeted prostate biopsy using image-fusion of multi-parametric magnetic resonance (mp-MR) with real-time trans-rectal ultrasound (TRUS) for clinically significant lesions that are suspicious only on mp-MR versus lesions that are suspicious on both mp-MR and TRUS. METHODS: Pre-biopsy MRI and TRUS were each scaled on a 3-point score: highly suspicious, likely, and unlikely for clinically significant cancer (sPCa). Using an MR-TRUS elastic image-fusion system (Koelis), a 127 consecutive patients with a suspicious clinically significant index lesion on pre-biopsy mp-MR underwent systematic biopsies and MR/US-fusion targeted biopsies (01/2010-09/2013). Biopsy histological outcomes were retrospectively compared with MR suspicion level and TRUS-visibility of the MR-suspicious lesion. sPCa was defined as biopsy Gleason score ≥7 and/or maximum cancer core length ≥5 mm. RESULTS: Targeted biopsies outperformed systematic biopsies in overall cancer detection rate (61 vs. 41 %; p = 0.007), sPCa detection rate (43 vs. 23 %; p = 0.0013), cancer core length (7.5 vs. 3.9 mm; p = 0.0002), and cancer rate per core (56 vs. 12 %; p < 0.0001), respectively. Highly suspicious lesions on mp-MR correlated with higher positive biopsy rate (p < 0.0001), higher Gleason score (p = 0.018), and greater cancer core length (p < 0.0001). Highly suspicious lesions on TRUS in corresponding to MR-suspicious lesion had a higher biopsy yield (p < 0.0001) and higher sPCa detection rate (p < 0.0001). Since majority of MR-suspicious lesions were also suspicious on TRUS, TRUS-visibility allowed selection of the specific MR-visible lesion which should be targeted from among the multiple TRUS suspicious lesions in each prostate. CONCLUSIONS: MR-TRUS fusion-image-guided biopsies outperformed systematic biopsies. TRUS-visibility of a MR-suspicious lesion facilitates image-guided biopsies, resulting in higher detection of significant cancer.
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
Authors: Daniel Portalez; Pierre Mozer; François Cornud; Raphaëlle Renard-Penna; Vincent Misrai; Matthieu Thoulouzan; Bernard Malavaud Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-06-27 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Osamu Ukimura; Jonathan A Coleman; Alex de la Taille; Mark Emberton; Jonathan I Epstein; Stephen J Freedland; Gianluca Giannarini; Adam S Kibel; Rodolfo Montironi; Guillaume Ploussard; Monique J Roobol; Vincenzo Scattoni; J Stephen Jones Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-09-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Robert Dufour; Caroline M Moore; Hashim U Ahmed; Mohamed Abd-Alazeez; Susan C Charman; Alex Freeman; Clare Allen; Alex Kirkham; Jan van der Meulen; Mark Emberton Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-10-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Geoffrey A Sonn; Edward Chang; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J Margolis; Malu Macairan; Patricia Lieu; Jiaoti Huang; Frederick J Dorey; Robert E Reiter; Leonard S Marks Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-03-17 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Osamu Ukimura; Andre Luis de Castro Abreu; Inderbir S Gill; Sunao Shoji; Andrew J Hung; Duke Bahn Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Hong Truong; Lambros Stamatakis; Srinivas Vourganti; Jeffrey Nix; Anthony N Hoang; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Brian Shuch; Michael Weintraub; Jochen Kruecker; Hayet Amalou; Baris Turkbey; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-06-12 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Hashim Uddin Ahmed; Yipeng Hu; Tim Carter; Nimalan Arumainayagam; Emilie Lecornet; Alex Freeman; David Hawkes; Dean C Barratt; Mark Emberton Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-06-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: T Enzmann; T Tokas; K Korte; M Ritter; P Hammerer; L Franzaring; H Heynemann; H-W Gottfried; H Bertermann; M Meyer-Schwickerath; B Wirth; A Pelzer; T Loch Journal: Urologe A Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Toshitaka Shin; Thomas B Smyth; Osamu Ukimura; Nariman Ahmadi; Andre Luis de Castro Abreu; Chisato Ohe; Masakatsu Oishi; Hiromitsu Mimata; Inderbir S Gill Journal: BJU Int Date: 2017-08-16 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Shivani Pahwa; Nicholas K Schiltz; Lee E Ponsky; Ziang Lu; Mark A Griswold; Vikas Gulani Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-05-17 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Wendy J M van de Ven; Wulphert Venderink; J P Michiel Sedelaar; Jeroen Veltman; Jelle O Barentsz; Jurgen J Fütterer; Erik B Cornel; Henkjan J Huisman Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2016-04-11 Impact factor: 2.370