F Distler1, J P Radtke2,3, C Kesch2, M Roethke3, H-P Schlemmer3, W Roth4, M Hohenfellner2, B Hadaschik2. 1. Urologische Universitätsklinik Heidelberg, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland. distlerflorian@arcor.de. 2. Urologische Universitätsklinik Heidelberg, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland. 3. Abteilung für Radiologie, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, Heidelberg, Deutschland. 4. Pathologisches Institut, Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) plays an emerging role in prostate cancer diagnosis. We compared the cancer detection rates of targeted biopsy (tB) of suspicious lesions in mpMRI versus systematic transperineal saturation biopsy (sB) in men with primary suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: A total of 437 consecutive primary biopsy patients, who underwent transperineal systematic and fusion-guided biopsy between 2012 and 2014, were enrolled. mpMRI was evaluated based on PI-RADS. Analysis of biopsy specimen was performed following START criteria. RESULTS: Of the 437 men, 334 harbored 426 MR lesions. Overall, 274 PCa and 203 significant PCa (Gleason score (GS) ≥ 3 + 4, GS = 3 + 3 and PSA values ≥ 10 ng/ml) were detected. There were 52 (26 %) significant PCa exclusively found by sB, whereas only 18 (9 %) were identified by tB (p < 0.001). Of 80 high-grade PCa with GS ≥ 4 + 3, 70 were diagnosed by sB, and 60 by tB (p = 0.007). In addition, 54 % of all insignificant PCa (GS < 7, PSA < 10 ng/ml) were detected by sB alone (p < 0.001). AUC of mpMRI was 0.76-0.78. CONCLUSION: The combination of tB + sB detects PCa most accurately. Ongoing prospective (multicenter) studies are evaluating the status of the 12 core TRUS-guided random biopsy.
BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) plays an emerging role in prostate cancer diagnosis. We compared the cancer detection rates of targeted biopsy (tB) of suspicious lesions in mpMRI versus systematic transperineal saturation biopsy (sB) in men with primary suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: A total of 437 consecutive primary biopsy patients, who underwent transperineal systematic and fusion-guided biopsy between 2012 and 2014, were enrolled. mpMRI was evaluated based on PI-RADS. Analysis of biopsy specimen was performed following START criteria. RESULTS: Of the 437 men, 334 harbored 426 MR lesions. Overall, 274 PCa and 203 significant PCa (Gleason score (GS) ≥ 3 + 4, GS = 3 + 3 and PSA values ≥ 10 ng/ml) were detected. There were 52 (26 %) significant PCa exclusively found by sB, whereas only 18 (9 %) were identified by tB (p < 0.001). Of 80 high-grade PCa with GS ≥ 4 + 3, 70 were diagnosed by sB, and 60 by tB (p = 0.007). In addition, 54 % of all insignificant PCa (GS < 7, PSA < 10 ng/ml) were detected by sB alone (p < 0.001). AUC of mpMRI was 0.76-0.78. CONCLUSION: The combination of tB + sB detects PCa most accurately. Ongoing prospective (multicenter) studies are evaluating the status of the 12 core TRUS-guided random biopsy.
Authors: Timur H Kuru; Karan Wadhwa; Richard Tsung Meng Chang; Lina Maria Carmona Echeverria; Matthias Roethke; Alexander Polson; Giles Rottenberg; Brendan Koo; Edward M Lawrence; Jonas Seidenader; Vincent Gnanapragasam; Richard Axell; Wilfried Roth; Anne Warren; Andrew Doble; Gordon Muir; Rick Popert; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Boris A Hadaschik; Christof Kastner Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-06-17 Impact factor: 5.588
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: 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: 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: G L Shaw; B C Thomas; S N Dawson; G Srivastava; S L Vowler; V J Gnanapragasam; N C Shah; A Y Warren; D E Neal Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-04-10 Impact factor: 7.640
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
Authors: Karsten Günzel; Hannes Cash; John Buckendahl; Maximilian Königbauer; Patrick Asbach; Matthias Haas; Jörg Neymeyer; Stefan Hinz; Kurt Miller; Carsten Kempkensteffen Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2017-01-13 Impact factor: 2.264
Authors: Francis Ting; Pim J Van Leeuwen; James Thompson; Ron Shnier; Daniel Moses; Warick Delprado; Phillip D Stricker Journal: Prostate Cancer Date: 2016-05-16