PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of real-time MRI/ultrasound (MRI/US) fusion-guided targeted biopsy (TB) in men with primary and repeat biopsies and correlate the prostate cancer detection rate (CDR) with the PI-RADS score. METHODS: Analysis included 408 consecutive men with primary and prior negative biopsies who underwent TB and 10-core random biopsy (RB) between January 2012 and January 2015. TB was performed with a real-time MRI/US fusion platform with sensor-based registration. Clinically significant PCa was defined as Gleason score (GS) ≥ 7 or GS 6 with maximal cancer core length ≥ 4 mm for TB and according to Epstein criteria for RB. RESULTS: The overall CDR was 56 % (227/408). The CDR for primary biopsy was 74 % (60/81) and 57 % (67/117), 49 % (62/126), 45 % (38/84) for patients with 1, 2 and ≥ 3 prior negative biopsies. CDRs correlated with PI-RADS 2/3/4/5 were 16 % (5/32), 26 % (29/113), 62 % (94/152) and 89 % (99/111), respectively. The rates of significant tumors in relation to PI-RADS 2/3/4/5 were 60 % (3/5), 66 % (19/29), 74 % (70/94), 95 % (94/99). In 139 (61 %) cases with radical prostatectomy (RP), the rates of ≥ pT3 tumors in correlation with PI-RADS 4 and 5 were 20 % (11/56) and 49 % (32/65). PI-RADS constituted the strongest predictor of significant PCa detection (p < 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Real-time MRI/US fusion-guided TB combined with RB improved PCa detection in patients with primary and repeat biopsies. The CDR was strongly correlated with a rising PI-RADS score, values of 4 and 5 increasing the detection of clinically significant tumors and leading to a higher histological stage after RP.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of real-time MRI/ultrasound (MRI/US) fusion-guided targeted biopsy (TB) in men with primary and repeat biopsies and correlate the prostate cancer detection rate (CDR) with the PI-RADS score. METHODS: Analysis included 408 consecutive men with primary and prior negative biopsies who underwent TB and 10-core random biopsy (RB) between January 2012 and January 2015. TB was performed with a real-time MRI/US fusion platform with sensor-based registration. Clinically significant PCa was defined as Gleason score (GS) ≥ 7 or GS 6 with maximal cancer core length ≥ 4 mm for TB and according to Epstein criteria for RB. RESULTS: The overall CDR was 56 % (227/408). The CDR for primary biopsy was 74 % (60/81) and 57 % (67/117), 49 % (62/126), 45 % (38/84) for patients with 1, 2 and ≥ 3 prior negative biopsies. CDRs correlated with PI-RADS 2/3/4/5 were 16 % (5/32), 26 % (29/113), 62 % (94/152) and 89 % (99/111), respectively. The rates of significant tumors in relation to PI-RADS 2/3/4/5 were 60 % (3/5), 66 % (19/29), 74 % (70/94), 95 % (94/99). In 139 (61 %) cases with radical prostatectomy (RP), the rates of ≥ pT3 tumors in correlation with PI-RADS 4 and 5 were 20 % (11/56) and 49 % (32/65). PI-RADS constituted the strongest predictor of significant PCa detection (p < 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Real-time MRI/US fusion-guided TB combined with RB improved PCa detection in patients with primary and repeat biopsies. The CDR was strongly correlated with a rising PI-RADS score, values of 4 and 5 increasing the detection of clinically significant tumors and leading to a higher histological stage after RP.
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: Marko Brock; Björn Löppenberg; Florian Roghmann; Alexandré Pelzer; Martin Dickmann; Wolfgang Becker; Philipp Martin-Seidel; Florian Sommerer; Lena Schenk; Rein Jüri Palisaar; Joachim Noldus; Christian von Bodman Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-11-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jacques Irani; Pascal Blanchet; Laurent Salomon; Patrick Coloby; Jacques Hubert; Bernard Malavaud; Nicolas Mottet Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-01-09 Impact factor: 7.450
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
Authors: Maarten de Rooij; Simone Crienen; J Alfred Witjes; Jelle O Barentsz; Maroeska M Rovers; Janneke P C Grutters Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-12-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Tan B Nguyen; Alexander Ushinsky; Albert Yang; Michael Nguyentat; Sara Fardin; Edward Uchio; Chandana Lall; Thomas Lee; Roozbeh Houshyar Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Susan John; Steven Cooper; Rodney H Breau; Trevor A Flood; Ilias Cagiannos; Luke T Lavallee; Christopher Morash; Joseph O'sullivan; Nicola Schieda Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Sunitha V Bachawal; Jae Mo Park; Keerthi S Valluru; Mathias Dyrberg Loft; Stephen A Felt; José G Vilches-Moure; Yamil F Saenz; Bruce Daniel; Andrei Iagaru; Geoffrey Sonn; Zhen Cheng; Daniel M Spielman; Jürgen K Willmann Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Nelly Tan; Wei-Chan Lin; Pooria Khoshnoodi; Nazanin H Asvadi; Jeffrey Yoshida; Daniel J A Margolis; David S K Lu; Holden Wu; Kyung Hyun Sung; David Y Lu; Jaioti Huang; Steven S Raman Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-11-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Daniel N Costa; Fernando U Kay; Ivan Pedrosa; Lauren Kolski; Yair Lotan; Claus G Roehrborn; Brad Hornberger; Yin Xi; Franto Francis; Neil M Rofsky Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2016-12-09 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Benedict Oerther; Moritz V Buren; Christina M Klein; Simon Kirste; Nils H Nicolay; Tanja Sprave; Simon Spohn; Deepa Darshini Gunashekar; Leonard Hagele; Lars Bielak; Michael Bock; Anca-L Grosu; Fabian Bamberg; Matthias Benndorf; Constantinos Zamboglou Journal: In Vivo Date: 2020 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.155