Pietro Pepe1, Antonio Garufi2, Giandomenico Priolo2, Michele Pennisi3. 1. Urology Unit, Cannizzaro Hospital, Via Messina 829, Catania, Italy. piepepe@hotmail.com. 2. Imaging Department, Cannizzaro Hospital, Catania, Italy. 3. Urology Unit, Cannizzaro Hospital, Via Messina 829, Catania, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The detection rate for significant prostate cancer of mMRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy versus saturation prostate biopsy was prospectively evaluated in men enrolled in active surveillance (AS) protocol. METHODS: From May 2013 to January 2015, 40 men aged 66 years (median) with very low-risk PCa were enrolled in an AS protocol, and eligible criteria were: life expectancy greater than 10 years, cT1C, PSA below 10 ng/ml, PSA density <0.20, ≤2 unilateral positive biopsy cores, Gleason score (GS) equal to 6, greatest percentage of cancer (GPC) in a core ≤50 %. All patients underwent 3.0-Tesla pelvic mpMRI before confirmatory transperineal saturation biopsy (SPBx; median 30 cores) combined with mpMRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy (median 4 cores) of suspicious lesions (PI-RADS 4-5). RESULTS: Ten out of 40 (25 %) patients were reclassified by SPBx based on upgraded GS ≥ 7; mpMRI found all the lesions predictive of significant PCa showing a false-positive rate equal to 5 %; on the contrary, mpMRI/TRUS targeted biopsy missed 3/10 (30 %) significant PCa characterised by the presence of a single positive core of GS ≥ 7 and GPC ≤ 5 %, suggesting that reduced number of targeted biopsies could miss small but significant PCa. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value of mpMRI in diagnosing significant PCa were 95.2, 100, 93.8, 83.4, 100 %, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although mpMRI provided high diagnostic accuracy (about 95 %) in diagnosing clinically significant PCa, mpMRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy cannot replace SPBx at confirmatory biopsy of men enrolled in AS protocols.
PURPOSE: The detection rate for significant prostate cancer of mMRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy versus saturation prostate biopsy was prospectively evaluated in men enrolled in active surveillance (AS) protocol. METHODS: From May 2013 to January 2015, 40 men aged 66 years (median) with very low-risk PCa were enrolled in an AS protocol, and eligible criteria were: life expectancy greater than 10 years, cT1C, PSA below 10 ng/ml, PSA density <0.20, ≤2 unilateral positive biopsy cores, Gleason score (GS) equal to 6, greatest percentage of cancer (GPC) in a core ≤50 %. All patients underwent 3.0-Tesla pelvic mpMRI before confirmatory transperineal saturation biopsy (SPBx; median 30 cores) combined with mpMRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy (median 4 cores) of suspicious lesions (PI-RADS 4-5). RESULTS: Ten out of 40 (25 %) patients were reclassified by SPBx based on upgraded GS ≥ 7; mpMRI found all the lesions predictive of significant PCa showing a false-positive rate equal to 5 %; on the contrary, mpMRI/TRUS targeted biopsy missed 3/10 (30 %) significant PCa characterised by the presence of a single positive core of GS ≥ 7 and GPC ≤ 5 %, suggesting that reduced number of targeted biopsies could miss small but significant PCa. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value of mpMRI in diagnosing significant PCa were 95.2, 100, 93.8, 83.4, 100 %, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although mpMRI provided high diagnostic accuracy (about 95 %) in diagnosing clinically significant PCa, mpMRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy cannot replace SPBx at confirmatory biopsy of men enrolled in AS protocols.
Entities:
Keywords:
Multi-parametric MRI and prostate cancer; Prostate cancer; mpMRI and active surveillance; mpMRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy
Authors: Fritz H Schröder; Jonas Hugosson; Monique J Roobol; Teuvo L J Tammela; Stefano Ciatto; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marcos Lujan; Hans Lilja; Marco Zappa; Louis J Denis; Franz Recker; Alvaro Páez; Liisa Määttänen; Chris H Bangma; Gunnar Aus; Sigrid Carlsson; Arnauld Villers; Xavier Rebillard; Theodorus van der Kwast; Paula M Kujala; Bert G Blijenberg; Ulf-Hakan Stenman; Andreas Huber; Kimmo Taari; Matti Hakama; Sue M Moss; Harry J de Koning; Anssi Auvinen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Massimo Valerio; Neil McCartan; Alex Freeman; Shonit Punwani; Mark Emberton; Hashim U Ahmed Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2015-07-17 Impact factor: 3.498
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
Authors: Eric A Klein; Matthew R Cooperberg; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Jeffry P Simko; Sara M Falzarano; Tara Maddala; June M Chan; Jianbo Li; Janet E Cowan; Athanasios C Tsiatis; Diana B Cherbavaz; Robert J Pelham; Imelda Tenggara-Hunter; Frederick L Baehner; Dejan Knezevic; Phillip G Febbo; Steven Shak; Michael W Kattan; Mark Lee; Peter R Carroll Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-05-16 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Fabian Steinkohl; Leonhard Gruber; Jasmin Bektic; Udo Nagele; Friedrich Aigner; Thomas R W Herrmann; Michael Rieger; Daniel Junker Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Erik Velez; Andriy Fedorov; Kemal Tuncali; Olutayo Olubiyi; Christopher B Allard; Adam S Kibel; Clare M Tempany Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2017-08
Authors: Liang G Qu; Modher Al-Shawi; Tess Howard; Nathan Papa; Cedric Poyet; Brian Kelly; A J Matthew Egan; Nathan Lawrentschuk; Damien Bolton; Gregory S Jack Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2021-10-08 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Pietro Pepe; Davide D'Urso; Antonio Garufi; Giandomenico Priolo; Michele Pennisi; Giorgio Russo; Maria Gabriella Sabini; Lucia Maria Valastro; Antonio Galia; Filippo Fraggetta Journal: In Vivo Date: 2017 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Rui Li; Sheng Xu; Ivane Bakhutashvili; Ismail B Turkbey; Peter Choyke; Peter Pinto; Bradford Wood; Zion T H Tse Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2018-11-28 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Emanuel Darius Cata; Iulia Andras; Teodora Telecan; Attila Tamas-Szora; Radu-Tudor Coman; Dan-Vasile Stanca; Ioan Coman; Nicolae Crisan Journal: Med Pharm Rep Date: 2021-04-29
Authors: M J Scheltema; K J Tay; A W Postema; D M de Bruin; J Feller; J J Futterer; A K George; R T Gupta; F Kahmann; C Kastner; M P Laguna; S Natarajan; S Rais-Bahrami; A R Rastinehad; T M de Reijke; G Salomon; N Stone; R van Velthoven; R Villani; A Villers; J Walz; T J Polascik; J J M C H de la Rosette Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-09-16 Impact factor: 4.226