Literature DB >> 26027768

Multiparametric MRI guidance in first-time prostate biopsies: what is the real benefit?

Ömer Acar1, Tarık Esen, Bülent Çolakoğlu, Metin Vural, Aslıhan Onay, Yeşim Sağlıcan, Barış Türkbey, İzzet Rozanes.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: With the increased recognition of the capabilities of prostate multiparametric (mp) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), attempts are being made to incorporate MRI into routine prostate biopsies. In this study, we aimed to analyze the diagnostic yield via cognitive fusion, transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided, and in-bore MRI-guided biopsies in biopsy-naive patients with positive findings for prostate cancer screening.
METHODS: Charts of 140 patients, who underwent transrectal prostate biopsy after the adaptation of mp-MRI into our routine clinical practice, were reviewed retrospectively. Patients with previous negative biopsies (n=24) and digital rectal examination findings suspicious for ≥cT3 prostate cancer (n=16) were excluded. T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging, and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging were included in mp-MRI. Cognitive fusion biopsies were performed after a review of mp-MRI data, whereas TRUS-guided biopsies were performed blinded to MRI information. In-bore biopsies were conducted by means of real-time targeting under MRI guidance.
RESULTS: Between January 2012 and February 2014, a total of 100 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria underwent TRUS-guided (n=37), cognitive fusion (n=49), and in-bore (n=14) biopsies. Mean age, serum prostate specific antigen level, and prostate size did not differ significantly among the study groups. In TRUS-guided biopsy group, 51.3% were diagnosed with prostate cancer, while the same ratio was 55.1% and 71.4% in cognitive fusion and in-bore biopsy groups, respectively (P = 0.429). Clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate was 69.1%, 70.3%, and 90% in TRUS-guided, cognitive fusion, and in-bore biopsy groups, respectively (P = 0.31). According to histopathologic variables in the prostatectomy specimen, significant prostate cancer was detected in 85.7%, 93.3%, and 100% of patients in TRUS-guided, cognitive fusion, and in-bore biopsy groups, respectively.
CONCLUSION: In the first set of transrectal prostate biopsies, mp-MRI guidance did not increase the diagnostic yield significantly.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26027768      PMCID: PMC4498421          DOI: 10.5152/dir.2015.46014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol        ISSN: 1305-3825            Impact factor:   2.630


  19 in total

1.  Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging.

Authors:  D F Gleason; G T Mellinger
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1974-01       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  A W Partin; J Yoo; H B Carter; J D Pearson; D W Chan; J I Epstein; P C Walsh
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy or external beam radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma in the prostate specific antigen era.

Authors:  Anthony V D'Amico; Richard Whittington; S Bruce Malkowicz; Kerri Cote; Marian Loffredo; Delray Schultz; Ming-Hui Chen; John E Tomaszewski; Andrew A Renshaw; Alan Wein; Jerome P Richie
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2002-07-15       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Evaluation of the PI-RADS scoring system for mpMRI of the prostate: a whole-mount step-section analysis.

Authors:  Daniel Junker; Michael Quentin; Udo Nagele; Michael Edlinger; Jonathan Richenberg; Georg Schaefer; Michael Ladurner; Werner Jaschke; Wolfgang Horninger; Friedrich Aigner
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Prostate cancer detection using an extended prostate biopsy schema in combination with additional targeted cores from suspicious images in conventional and functional endorectal magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate.

Authors:  A P Labanaris; K Engelhard; V Zugor; R Nützel; R Kühn
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2009-09-15       Impact factor: 5.554

6.  The worldwide epidemiology of prostate cancer: perspectives from autopsy studies.

Authors:  Gabriel P Haas; Nicolas Delongchamps; Otis W Brawley; Ching Y Wang; Gustavo de la Roza
Journal:  Can J Urol       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.344

7.  Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer.

Authors:  T A Stamey; F S Freiha; J E McNeal; E A Redwine; A S Whittemore; H P Schmid
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1993-02-01       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Detection of prostate cancer via biopsy in the Medicare-SEER population during the PSA era.

Authors:  H Gilbert Welch; Elliott S Fisher; Daniel J Gottlieb; Michael J Barry
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2007-09-11       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate.

Authors:  K K Hodge; J E McNeal; M K Terris; T A Stamey
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1989-07       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Characterizing clinically significant prostate cancer using template prostate mapping biopsy.

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

View more
  5 in total

1.  Assessment of the compliance with minimum acceptable technical parameters proposed by PI-RADS v2 guidelines in multiparametric prostate MRI acquisition in tertiary referral hospitals in the Republic of Turkey.

Authors:  Mehmet Coşkun; Ali Fırat Sarp; Şebnem Karasu; Mustafa Fazıl Gelal; Barış Türkbey
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 2.630

2.  Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: The role of systematic and targeted biopsies.

Authors:  Christopher P Filson; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J A Margolis; Jiaoti Huang; Patricia Lieu; Frederick J Dorey; Robert E Reiter; Leonard S Marks
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 3.  Imaging as a Personalized Biomarker for Prostate Cancer Risk Stratification.

Authors:  Kyle H Gennaro; Kristin K Porter; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Samuel J Galgano; Soroush Rais-Bahrami
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2018-11-30

Review 4.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate-a basic tutorial.

Authors:  Miguel C Cabarrus; Antonio C Westphalen
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2017-06

Review 5.  Cost consideration in utilization of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ryan Hutchinson; Yair Lotan
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2017-06
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.