Literature DB >> 26699628

Can MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy replace saturation prostate biopsy in the re-evaluation of men in active surveillance?

Pietro Pepe1, Antonio Garufi2, Giandomenico Priolo2, Michele Pennisi3.   

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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Multi-parametric MRI and prostate cancer; Prostate cancer; mpMRI and active surveillance; mpMRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26699628     DOI: 10.1007/s00345-015-1749-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Urol        ISSN: 0724-4983            Impact factor:   4.226


  30 in total

1.  Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up.

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

2.  Histologic upgrading in patients eligible for active surveillance on saturation biopsy.

Authors:  Paul H Chung; Oussama M Darwish; Claus G Roehrborn; Payal Kapur; Yair Lotan
Journal:  Can J Urol       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 1.344

3.  Visually directed vs. software-based targeted biopsy compared to transperineal template mapping biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

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

4.  Staging saturation biopsy in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance protocol.

Authors:  Robert Abouassaly; Brian R Lane; J Stephen Jones
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 2.649

5.  Can 3-Tesla pelvic phased-array multiparametric MRI avoid unnecessary repeat prostate biopsy in patients with PSA < 10 ng/mL?

Authors:  Pietro Pepe; Antonio Garufi; Giandomenico Priolo; Michele Pennisi
Journal:  Clin Genitourin Cancer       Date:  2014-06-21       Impact factor: 2.872

6.  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

7.  Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer.

Authors:  J I Epstein; P C Walsh; M Carmichael; C B Brendler
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-02-02       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Pathological upgrading and upstaging of patients eligible for active surveillance according to currently used protocols.

Authors:  Tae Heon Kim; Hwang Gyun Jeon; Seol Ho Choo; Byong Chang Jeong; Seong Il Seo; Seong Soo Jeon; Han Yong Choi; Hyun Moo Lee
Journal:  Int J Urol       Date:  2013-10-29       Impact factor: 3.369

9.  Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Laurence Klotz; Liying Zhang; Adam Lam; Robert Nam; Alexandre Mamedov; Andrew Loblaw
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-11-16       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  A 17-gene assay to predict prostate cancer aggressiveness in the context of Gleason grade heterogeneity, tumor multifocality, and biopsy undersampling.

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

View more
  15 in total

1.  Retrospective analysis of the development of PIRADS 3 lesions over time: when is a follow-up MRI reasonable?

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

2.  Pathologic correlation of transperineal in-bore 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging-guided prostate biopsy samples with radical prostatectomy specimen.

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

3.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer-a comparative study including radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Liam Toner; Nathan Papa; Marlon Perera; Nikolas Katelaris; Mahesha Weerakoon; Kwang Chin; Laurence Harewood; Damien M Bolton; Nathan Lawrentschuk
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-10-26       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Gleason grade accuracy of transperineal and transrectal prostate biopsies in MRI-naïve patients.

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

5.  Multiparametric MRI Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) Accuracy in Diagnosing Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.

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

6.  Template for MR Visualization and Needle Targeting.

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

7.  Multiparametric MRI Versus SelectMDx Accuracy in the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant PCa in Men Enrolled in Active Surveillance.

Authors:  Pietro Pepe; Giuseppe Dibenedetto; Ludovica Pepe; Michele Pennisi
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2020 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.155

Review 8.  MRI-targeted prostate biopsy: the next step forward!

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

9.  Utilization of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in clinical practice and focal therapy: report from a Delphi consensus project.

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

10.  Difference of opinion - Active surveillance in intermediate risk prostate cancer: is it safe? Opinion: Yes.

Authors:  Henk G van der Poel; Roderick C N van den Bergh
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2016 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.541

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.