J P Radtke1, S Boxler2, T H Kuru2, M B Wolf3, C D Alt3, I V Popeneciu2, S Steinemann2, C Huettenbrink2, C Bergstraesser-Gasch2, T Klein2, C Kesch2, M Roethke4, N Becker5, W Roth6, H-P Schlemmer4, M Hohenfellner2, B A Hadaschik2. 1. 1] Department of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany [2] Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany. 2. Department of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany. 5. Clinical Cancer Registry, National Center of Tumour Diseases, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany. 6. Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to analyze the potential of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI/transrectal ultrasound-fusion biopsies to detect and to characterize significant prostate cancer (sPC) in the anterior fibromuscular stroma (AFMS) and in the transition zone (TZ) of the prostate and to assess the accuracy of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and biparametric MRI (bpMRI) (T2w and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI)). METHODS: Seven hundred and fifty-five consecutive patients underwent prebiopsy 3 T mpMRI and transperineal biopsy between October 2012 and September 2014. MRI images were analyzed using PIRADS (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System). All patients had systematic biopsies (SBs, median n=24) as reference test and targeted biopsies (TBs) with rigid software registration in case of MRI-suspicious lesions. Detection rates of SBs and TBs were assessed for all PC and sPC patients defined by Gleason score (GS)⩾3+4 and GS⩾4+3. For PC, which were not concordantly detected by TBs and SBs, prostatectomy specimens were assessed. We further compared bpMRI with mpMRI. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-one patients harbored 194 lesions in AFMS and TZ on mpMRI. Patient-based analysis detected no difference in the detection of all PC for SBs vs TBs in the overall cohort, but in the repeat-biopsy population TBs performed significantly better compared with SBs (P=0.004 for GS⩾3+4 and P=0.022 for GS⩾4+3, respectively). Nine GS⩾4+3 sPCs were overlooked by SBs, whereas TBs missed two sPC in men undergoing primary biopsy. The combination of SBs and TBs provided optimal local staging. Non-inferiority analysis showed no relevant difference of bpMRI to mpMRI in sPC detection. CONCLUSIONS: MRI-targeted biopsies detected significantly more anteriorly located sPC compared with SBs in the repeat-biopsy setting. The more cost-efficient bpMRI was statistically not inferior to mpMRI in sPC detection in TZ/AFMS.
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to analyze the potential of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI/transrectal ultrasound-fusion biopsies to detect and to characterize significant prostate cancer (sPC) in the anterior fibromuscular stroma (AFMS) and in the transition zone (TZ) of the prostate and to assess the accuracy of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and biparametric MRI (bpMRI) (T2w and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI)). METHODS: Seven hundred and fifty-five consecutive patients underwent prebiopsy 3 T mpMRI and transperineal biopsy between October 2012 and September 2014. MRI images were analyzed using PIRADS (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System). All patients had systematic biopsies (SBs, median n=24) as reference test and targeted biopsies (TBs) with rigid software registration in case of MRI-suspicious lesions. Detection rates of SBs and TBs were assessed for all PC and sPC patients defined by Gleason score (GS)⩾3+4 and GS⩾4+3. For PC, which were not concordantly detected by TBs and SBs, prostatectomy specimens were assessed. We further compared bpMRI with mpMRI. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-one patients harbored 194 lesions in AFMS and TZ on mpMRI. Patient-based analysis detected no difference in the detection of all PC for SBs vs TBs in the overall cohort, but in the repeat-biopsy population TBs performed significantly better compared with SBs (P=0.004 for GS⩾3+4 and P=0.022 for GS⩾4+3, respectively). Nine GS⩾4+3 sPCs were overlooked by SBs, whereas TBs missed two sPC in men undergoing primary biopsy. The combination of SBs and TBs provided optimal local staging. Non-inferiority analysis showed no relevant difference of bpMRI to mpMRI in sPC detection. CONCLUSIONS: MRI-targeted biopsies detected significantly more anteriorly located sPC compared with SBs in the repeat-biopsy setting. The more cost-efficient bpMRI was statistically not inferior to mpMRI in sPC detection in TZ/AFMS.
Authors: M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Arvin K George; Jason Rothwax; Nabeel Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Dima Raskolnikov; Howard L Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Richard M Simon; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Erik Rud; Dagmar Klotz; Kristin Rennesund; Eduard Baco; Viktor Berge; Diep Lien; Aud Svindland; Eskild Lundeby; Rolf E Berg; Lars M Eri; Heidi B Eggesbø Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: J Mygatt; I Sesterhenn; I Rosner; Y Chen; J Cullen; T Morris-Gore; J Barton; A Dobi; S Srivastava; D McLeod; S A Brassell Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2013-12-03 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: James E Thompson; Daniel Moses; Ron Shnier; Phillip Brenner; Warick Delprado; Lee Ponsky; Marley Pulbrook; Maret Böhm; Anne-Maree Haynes; Andrew Hayen; Phillip D Stricker Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-02-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Pierre Nevoux; Adil Ouzzane; Hashim U Ahmed; Mark Emberton; Rodolfo Montironi; Joseph C Presti; Arnauld Villers Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-12-22 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: C Kesch; J P Radtke; F Distler; S Boxler; T Klein; C Hüttenbrink; K Hees; W Roth; M Roethke; H P Schlemmer; M Hohenfellner; B A Hadaschik Journal: Urologe A Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Michael Kongnyuy; Abhinav Sidana; Arvin K George; Akhil Muthigi; Amogh Iyer; Michele Fascelli; Meet Kadakia; Thomas P Frye; Richard Ho; Francesca Mertan; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Daniel Su; Maria J Merino; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2016-02-20 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Eugenio Martorana; Giacomo Maria Pirola; Maria Cristina Aisa; Pietro Scialpi; Aldo Di Blasi; Giovanni Saredi; Alfredo D'Andrea; Stefano Signore; Riccardo Grisanti; Michele Scialpi Journal: Turk J Urol Date: 2019-07-01
Authors: Aaron Reed; Luca F Valle; Uma Shankavaram; Andra Krauze; Aradhana Kaushal; Erica Schott; Theresa Cooley-Zgela; Bradford Wood; Peter Pinto; Peter Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Deborah E Citrin Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-12-18 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: D Nörenberg; O Solyanik; B Schlenker; G Magistro; B Ertl-Wagner; D A Clevert; C Stief; M F Reiser; M D'Anastasi Journal: Urologe A Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Akhil Muthigi; Arvin K George; Abhinav Sidana; Michael Kongnyuy; Richard Simon; Vanessa Moreno; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-08-28 Impact factor: 7.450
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