Eduard Baco1, Erik Rud2, Lars Magne Eri3, Gunnar Moen4, Ljiljana Vlatkovic5, Aud Svindland5, Heidi B Eggesbø2, Osamu Ukimura6. 1. Department of Urology, Division for Cancer Medicine, Surgery and Transplantation, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. Electronic address: eduard.baco@medisin.uio.no. 2. University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 3. Department of Urology, Division for Cancer Medicine, Surgery and Transplantation, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 4. Department of Urology, Division for Cancer Medicine, Surgery and Transplantation, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 5. Department of Pathology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 6. USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prostate biopsy guided by computer-assisted fusion of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) images (MRI group) has not yet been compared with 12-core random biopsy (RB; control group) in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). OBJECTIVE: To compare the rate of detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) between the two groups. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This RCT included 175 biopsy-naïve patients with suspicion for prostate cancer, randomized to an MRI group (n=86) and a control group (n=89) between September 2011 and June 2013. INTERVENTION: In the MRI group, two-core targeted biopsy (TB) guided by computer-assisted fusion of MRI/TRUS images of MRI-suspicious lesions was followed by 12-core RB. In the control group, both two-core TB for abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) and/or TRUS-suspicious lesions and 12-core RB were performed. In patients with normal MRI or DRE/TRUS, only 12-core RB was performed. OUTCOMES MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The detection rates for any cancer and csPCa were compared between the two groups and between TB and RB. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Detection rates for any cancer (MRI group 51/86, 59%; control group 48/89, 54%; p=0.4) and csPCa (38/86, 44% vs 44/89, 49%; p=0.5) did not significantly differ between the groups. Detection of csPCa was comparable between two-core MRI/TRUS-TB (33/86, 38%) and 12-core RB in the control group (44/89, 49%; p=0.2). In a subset analysis of patients with normal DRE, csPCa detection was similar between two-core MRI/TRUS-TB (14/66, 21%) and 12-core RB in the control group (15/60, 25%; p=0.7). Among biopsy-proven csPCas in MRI group, 87% (33/38) were detected by MRI/TRUS-TB. The definition of csPCa was only based on biopsy outcomes. CONCLUSION: Overall csPCa detection was similar between the MRI and control groups. Two-core MRI/TRUS-TB was comparable to 12-core RB for csPCa detection. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our randomized controlled trial revealed a similar rate of prostate cancer detection between targeted biopsy guided by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and 12-core random biopsy. The traditional 12-core random biopsy may be replaced by two-core MRI/TRUS targeted biopsy for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.
BACKGROUND: Prostate biopsy guided by computer-assisted fusion of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) images (MRI group) has not yet been compared with 12-core random biopsy (RB; control group) in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). OBJECTIVE: To compare the rate of detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) between the two groups. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This RCT included 175 biopsy-naïve patients with suspicion for prostate cancer, randomized to an MRI group (n=86) and a control group (n=89) between September 2011 and June 2013. INTERVENTION: In the MRI group, two-core targeted biopsy (TB) guided by computer-assisted fusion of MRI/TRUS images of MRI-suspicious lesions was followed by 12-core RB. In the control group, both two-core TB for abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) and/or TRUS-suspicious lesions and 12-core RB were performed. In patients with normal MRI or DRE/TRUS, only 12-core RB was performed. OUTCOMES MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The detection rates for any cancer and csPCa were compared between the two groups and between TB and RB. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Detection rates for any cancer (MRI group 51/86, 59%; control group 48/89, 54%; p=0.4) and csPCa (38/86, 44% vs 44/89, 49%; p=0.5) did not significantly differ between the groups. Detection of csPCa was comparable between two-core MRI/TRUS-TB (33/86, 38%) and 12-core RB in the control group (44/89, 49%; p=0.2). In a subset analysis of patients with normal DRE, csPCa detection was similar between two-core MRI/TRUS-TB (14/66, 21%) and 12-core RB in the control group (15/60, 25%; p=0.7). Among biopsy-proven csPCas in MRI group, 87% (33/38) were detected by MRI/TRUS-TB. The definition of csPCa was only based on biopsy outcomes. CONCLUSION: Overall csPCa detection was similar between the MRI and control groups. Two-core MRI/TRUS-TB was comparable to 12-core RB for csPCa detection. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our randomized controlled trial revealed a similar rate of prostate cancer detection between targeted biopsy guided by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and 12-core random biopsy. The traditional 12-core random biopsy may be replaced by two-core MRI/TRUS targeted biopsy for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.
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: Niklas Westhoff; Henning Haumann; Maximilian Christian Kriegmair; Jost von Hardenberg; Johannes Budjan; Stefan Porubsky; Maurice Stephan Michel; Patrick Honeck; Manuel Ritter Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-12-17 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: L Schimmöller; M Quentin; D Blondin; F Dietzel; A Hiester; C Schleich; C Thomas; R Rabenalt; H E Gabbert; P Albers; G Antoch; C Arsov Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Frank-Jan H Drost; Daniël F Osses; Daan Nieboer; Ewout W Steyerberg; Chris H Bangma; Monique J Roobol; Ivo G Schoots Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-04-25
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Anna M Brown; Sandeep Sankineni; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 508.702