Literature DB >> 26033153

Prebiopsy Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis in Biopsy-naive Men with Suspected Prostate Cancer Based on Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen Values: Results from a Randomized Prospective Blinded Controlled Trial.

Panu P Tonttila1, Juha Lantto1, Eija Pääkkö1, Ulla Piippo1, Saila Kauppila1, Eveliina Lammentausta1, Pasi Ohtonen1, Markku H Vaarala2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) may improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa).
OBJECTIVE: To compare MP-MRI transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-fusion targeted biopsy with routine TRUS-guided random biopsy for overall and clinically significant PCa detection among patients with suspected PCa based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This institutional review board-approved, single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial (April 2011 to December 2014) included 130 biopsy-naive patients referred for prostate biopsy based on PSA values (PSA <20 ng/ml or free-to-total PSA ratio ≤0.15 and PSA <10 ng/ml). Patients were randomized 1:1 to the MP-MRI or control group. Patients in the MP-MRI group underwent prebiopsy MP-MRI followed by 10- to 12-core TRUS-guided random biopsy and cognitive MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy. The control group underwent TRUS-guided random biopsy alone. INTERVENTION: MP-MRI 3-T phased-array surface coil. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was the number of patients with biopsy-proven PCa in the MP-MRI and control groups. Secondary outcome measures included the number of positive prostate biopsies and the proportion of clinically significant PCa in the MP-MRI and control groups. Between-group analyses were performed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 53 and 60 patients were evaluable in the MP-MRI and control groups, respectively. The overall PCa detection rate and the clinically significant cancer detection rate were similar between the MP-MRI and control groups, respectively (64% [34 of 53] vs 57% [34 of 60]; 7.5% difference [95% confidence interval (CI), -10 to 25], p=0.5, and 55% [29 of 53] vs 45% [27 of 60]; 9.7% difference [95% CI, -8.5 to 27], p=0.8). The PCa detection rate was higher than assumed during the planning of this single-center trial.
CONCLUSIONS: MP-MRI/TRUS-fusion targeted biopsy did not improve PCa detection rate compared with TRUS-guided biopsy alone in patients with suspected PCa based on PSA values. PATIENT
SUMMARY: In this randomized clinical trial, additional prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before prostate biopsy appeared to offer similar diagnostic accuracy compared with routine transrectal ultrasound-guided random biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Similar numbers of cancers were detected with and without MRI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01357512.
Copyright © 2015 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biopsy; Diagnosis; Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging; Prostate cancer; Prostate-specific antigen

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26033153     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.05.024

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  53 in total

1.  Robotic Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Prostate Biopsy.

Authors:  Sunghwan Lim; Changhan Jun; Doyoung Chang; Doru Petrisor; Misop Han; Dan Stoianovici
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2019-01-07       Impact factor: 4.538

2.  [PREFERE - Study on the rise].

Authors:  Carsten-H Ohlmann; Michael Stöckle; Peter Albers; Heinz Schmidberger; Martin Härter; Glen Kristiansen; Peter Martus; Stefan Wellek; Roswitha Bussar-Maatz; Thomas Wiegel
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 3.  Multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis: current status and future directions.

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

4.  Knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards prostate cancer screening amongst men living in the southern Italian peninsula: the Prevention and Research in Oncology (PRO) non-profit Foundation experience.

Authors:  Vincenzo Mirone; Ciro Imbimbo; Davide Arcaniolo; Marco Franco; Roberto La Rocca; Luca Venturino; Lorenzo Spirito; Massimiliano Creta; Paolo Verze
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-08-05       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies vs. magnetic resonance imaging ultrasound fusion targeted biopsies: Who are the best candidates?

Authors:  Elsa Bey; Olivier Gaget; Jean-Luc Descotes; Quentin Franquet; Jean-Jacques Rambeaud; Jean-Alexandre Long; Gaelle Fiard
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2017-12-01       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 6.  Arguments against using an abbreviated or biparametric prostate MRI protocol.

Authors:  Felipe B Franco; Fiona M Fennessy
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-12

7.  Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer.

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

8.  [PI-RADS 2.0 for Prostate MRI].

Authors:  T Franiel; M Röthke
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 0.635

9.  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

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.