Literature DB >> 26112001

Relationship Between Prebiopsy Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Biopsy Indication, and MRI-ultrasound Fusion-targeted Prostate Biopsy Outcomes.

Xiaosong Meng1, Andrew B Rosenkrantz2, Neil Mendhiratta3, Michael Fenstermaker3, Richard Huang1, James S Wysock4, Marc A Bjurlin5, Susan Marshall1, Fang-Ming Deng6, Ming Zhou6, Jonathan Melamed6, William C Huang1, Herbert Lepor1, Samir S Taneja7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence supports the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy (MRF-TB) to improve the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) while limiting detection of indolent disease compared to systematic 12-core biopsy (SB).
OBJECTIVE: To compare MRF-TB and SB results and investigate the relationship between biopsy outcomes and prebiopsy MRI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective analysis of a prospectively acquired cohort of men presenting for prostate biopsy over a 26-mo period. A total of 601 of 803 consecutively eligible men were included.
INTERVENTIONS: All men were offered prebiopsy MRI and assigned a maximum MRI suspicion score (mSS). Men with an MRI abnormality underwent combined MRF-TB and SB. OUTCOMES: Detection rates for all PCa and high-grade PCa (Gleason score [GS] ≥7) were compared using the McNemar test. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: MRF-TB detected fewer GS 6 PCas (75 vs 121; p<0.001) and more GS ≥7 PCas (158 vs 117; p<0.001) than SB. Higher mSS was associated with higher detection of GS ≥7 PCa (p<0.001) but was not correlated with detection of GS 6 PCa. Prediction of GS ≥7 disease by mSS varied according to biopsy history. Compared to SB, MRF-TB identified more GS ≥7 PCas in men with no prior biopsy (88 vs 72; p=0.012), in men with a prior negative biopsy (28 vs 16; p=0.010), and in men with a prior cancer diagnosis (42 vs 29; p=0.043). MRF-TB detected fewer GS 6 PCas in men with no prior biopsy (32 vs 60; p<0.001) and men with prior cancer (30 vs 46; p=0.034). Limitations include the retrospective design and the potential for selection bias given a referral population.
CONCLUSIONS: MRF-TB detects more high-grade PCas than SB while limiting detection of GS 6 PCa in men presenting for prostate biopsy. These findings suggest that prebiopsy multiparametric MRI and MRF-TB should be considered for all men undergoing prostate biopsy. In addition, mSS in conjunction with biopsy indications may ultimately help in identifying men at low risk of high-grade cancer for whom prostate biopsy may not be warranted. PATIENT
SUMMARY: We examined how magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted prostate biopsy compares to traditional systematic biopsy in detecting prostate cancer among men with suspicion of prostate cancer. We found that MRI-targeted biopsy detected more high-grade cancers than systematic biopsy, and that MRI performed before biopsy can predict the risk of high-grade cancer.
Copyright © 2015 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion; Magnetic resonance imaging–targeted prostate biopsy; Prostate biopsy; Prostate cancer; Prostate magnetic resonance imaging

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26112001      PMCID: PMC5104338          DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.005

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


  20 in total

1.  Comparison of interreader reproducibility of the prostate imaging reporting and data system and likert scales for evaluation of multiparametric prostate MRI.

Authors:  Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Ruth P Lim; Mershad Haghighi; Molly B Somberg; James S Babb; Samir S Taneja
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

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

3.  Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Tosoian; Bruce J Trock; Patricia Landis; Zhaoyong Feng; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; H Ballentine Carter
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-04-04       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Five-year nationwide follow-up study of active surveillance for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; Yasin Folkvaljon; Danil V Makarov; Ola Bratt; Anna Bill-Axelson; Pär Stattin
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-06-30       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  Critical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging targeted, transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal fusion biopsy for detection of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Timur H Kuru; Matthias C Roethke; Jonas Seidenader; Tobias Simpfendörfer; Silvan Boxler; Khalid Alammar; Philip Rieker; Valentin I Popeneciu; Wilfried Roth; Sascha Pahernik; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Markus Hohenfellner; Boris A Hadaschik
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2013-04-19       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer detection: comparison of random and targeted biopsies.

Authors:  Nicolas Barry Delongchamps; Michaël Peyromaure; Alexandre Schull; Frédéric Beuvon; Naïm Bouazza; Thierry Flam; Marc Zerbib; Naira Muradyan; Paul Legman; François Cornud
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2012-10-08       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial.

Authors:  James S Wysock; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; William C Huang; Michael D Stifelman; Herbert Lepor; Fang-Ming Deng; Jonathan Melamed; Samir S Taneja
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2013-11-08       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  Histology core-specific evaluation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) standardised scoring system of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate.

Authors:  Timur H Kuru; Matthias C Roethke; Philip Rieker; Wilfried Roth; Michael Fenchel; Markus Hohenfellner; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Boris A Hadaschik
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2013-08-13       Impact factor: 5.588

9.  Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies.

Authors:  Morgan R Pokorny; Maarten de Rooij; Earl Duncan; Fritz H Schröder; Robert Parkinson; Jelle O Barentsz; Leslie C Thompson
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-03-14       Impact factor: 20.096

10.  Prostate cancer localization using multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and Likert scales.

Authors:  Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Sooah Kim; Ruth P Lim; Nicole Hindman; Fang-Ming Deng; James S Babb; Samir S Taneja
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-06-20       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  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.  Computer-aided diagnosis prior to conventional interpretation of prostate mpMRI: an international multi-reader study.

Authors:  Matthew D Greer; Nathan Lay; Joanna H Shih; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo Kayat Bittencourt; Samuel Borofsky; Ismail Kabakus; Yan Mee Law; Jamie Marko; Haytham Shebel; Francesca V Mertan; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Ronald M Summers; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-04-12       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  [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 4.  Targeted prostate biopsy and MR-guided therapy for prostate cancer.

Authors:  David A Woodrum; Akira Kawashima; Krzysztof R Gorny; Lance A Mynderse
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2016-05

5.  The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of prostate cancer: NYU Case of the Month, October 2016.

Authors: 
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2016

Review 6.  [MRI/TRUS fusion-guided prostate biopsy : Value in the context of focal therapy].

Authors:  T Franz; J von Hardenberg; A Blana; H Cash; D Baumunk; G Salomon; B Hadaschik; T Henkel; J Herrmann; F Kahmann; K-U Köhrmann; J Köllermann; S Kruck; U-B Liehr; S Machtens; I Peters; J P Radtke; A Roosen; H-P Schlemmer; L Sentker; J J Wendler; U Witzsch; J-U Stolzenburg; M Schostak; R Ganzer
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 0.639

7.  Association of training level and outcome of software-based image fusion-guided targeted prostate biopsies.

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

Review 8.  Advances in medical imaging for the diagnosis and management of common genitourinary cancers.

Authors:  Mohammad H Bagheri; Mark A Ahlman; Liza Lindenberg; Baris Turkbey; Jeffrey Lin; Ali Cahid Civelek; Ashkan A Malayeri; Piyush K Agarwal; Peter L Choyke; Les R Folio; Andrea B Apolo
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2017-05-12       Impact factor: 3.498

9.  Evaluating the size criterion for PI-RADSv2 category 5 upgrade: is 15 mm the best threshold?

Authors:  Julie Y An; Stephanie A Harmon; Sherif Mehralivand; Marcin Czarniecki; Clayton P Smith; Julie A Peretti; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Joanna H Shih; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2018-12

Review 10.  Active surveillance for prostate cancer: current evidence and contemporary state of practice.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Tosoian; H Ballentine Carter; Abbey Lepor; Stacy Loeb
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 14.432

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.