Daniel J Lee1, Pedro Recabal2, Daniel D Sjoberg3, Alan Thong4, Justin K Lee4, James A Eastham4, Peter T Scardino4, Hebert Alberto Vargas5, Jonathan Coleman4, Behfar Ehdaie6. 1. Department of Urology, Weill-Cornell Medical College, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York. 2. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; Urology Service, Fundacion Arturo Lopez Perez, Santiago, Chile. 3. Health Outcomes Group, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 4. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 5. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 6. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; Health Outcomes Group, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. Electronic address: ehdaieb@mskcc.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We compared the diagnostic outcomes of magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion and visually targeted biopsy for targeting regions of interest on prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients presenting for prostate biopsy with regions of interest on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging underwent magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy. For each region of interest 2 visually targeted cores were obtained, followed by 2 cores using a magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion device. Our primary end point was the difference in the detection of high grade (Gleason 7 or greater) and any grade cancer between visually targeted and magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion, investigated using McNemar's method. Secondary end points were the difference in detection rate by biopsy location using a logistic regression model and the difference in median cancer length using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: We identified 396 regions of interest in 286 men. The difference in the detection of high grade cancer between magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy and visually targeted biopsy was -1.4% (95% CI -6.4 to 3.6, p=0.6) and for any grade cancer the difference was 3.5% (95% CI -1.9 to 8.9, p=0.2). Median cancer length detected by magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion and visually targeted biopsy was 5.5 vs 5.8 mm, respectively (p=0.8). Magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy detected 15% more cancers in the transition zone (p=0.046) and visually targeted biopsy detected 11% more high grade cancer at the prostate base (p=0.005). Only 52% of all high grade cancers were detected by both techniques. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of a significant difference in the detection of high grade or any grade cancer between visually targeted and magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy. However, the performance of each technique varied in specific biopsy locations and the outcomes of both techniques were complementary. Combining visually targeted biopsy and magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy may optimize the detection of prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: We compared the diagnostic outcomes of magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion and visually targeted biopsy for targeting regions of interest on prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients presenting for prostate biopsy with regions of interest on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging underwent magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy. For each region of interest 2 visually targeted cores were obtained, followed by 2 cores using a magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion device. Our primary end point was the difference in the detection of high grade (Gleason 7 or greater) and any grade cancer between visually targeted and magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion, investigated using McNemar's method. Secondary end points were the difference in detection rate by biopsy location using a logistic regression model and the difference in median cancer length using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. RESULTS: We identified 396 regions of interest in 286 men. The difference in the detection of high grade cancer between magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy and visually targeted biopsy was -1.4% (95% CI -6.4 to 3.6, p=0.6) and for any grade cancer the difference was 3.5% (95% CI -1.9 to 8.9, p=0.2). Median cancer length detected by magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion and visually targeted biopsy was 5.5 vs 5.8 mm, respectively (p=0.8). Magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy detected 15% more cancers in the transition zone (p=0.046) and visually targeted biopsy detected 11% more high grade cancer at the prostate base (p=0.005). Only 52% of all high grade cancers were detected by both techniques. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of a significant difference in the detection of high grade or any grade cancer between visually targeted and magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy. However, the performance of each technique varied in specific biopsy locations and the outcomes of both techniques were complementary. Combining visually targeted biopsy and magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy may optimize the detection of prostate cancer.
Authors: Olivio F Donati; Asim Afaq; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Yousef Mazaheri; Junting Zheng; Chaya S Moskowitz; Hedvig Hricak; Oguz Akin Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-05-21 Impact factor: 12.531
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: Peter A Pinto; Paul H Chung; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Angelo A Baccala; Jochen Kruecker; Compton J Benjamin; Sheng Xu; Pingkun Yan; Samuel Kadoury; Celene Chua; Julia K Locklin; Baris Turkbey; Joanna H Shih; Stacey P Gates; Carey Buckner; Gennady Bratslavsky; W Marston Linehan; Neil D Glossop; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Geoffrey A Sonn; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J A Margolis; Malu MacAiran; Patricia Lieu; Jiaoti Huang; Frederick J Dorey; Leonard S Marks Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-11-14 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: R Diamand; M Oderda; W Al Hajj Obeid; S Albisinni; R Van Velthoven; G Fasolis; G Simone; M Ferriero; J-B Roche; T Piechaud; A Pastore; A Carbone; G Fiard; J-L Descotes; G Marra; P Gontero; E Altobelli; R Papalia; P Kumar; D Eldred-Evans; A Giacobbe; G Muto; V Lacetera; V Beatrici; T Roumeguere; A Peltier Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-01-16 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Ariel A Schulman; Christina Sze; Efrat Tsivian; Rajan T Gupta; Judd W Moul; Thomas J Polascik Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 3.092
Authors: Mitch Hayes; Solange Bassale; Nicholas H Chakiryan; Luc Boileau; Jacob Grassauer; Matthew Wagner; Bryan Foster; Fergus Coakley; Sudhir Isharwal; Christopher L Amling; Jen-Jane Liu Journal: BJUI Compass Date: 2022-06-05
Authors: Gregory T Chesnut; Piotr Zareba; Daniel D Sjoberg; Maha Mamoor; Sigrid Carlsson; Taehyoung Lee; Jonathan Fainberg; Emily Vertosick; Michael Manasia; Mary Schoen; Behfar Ehdaie Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2019-11-29 Impact factor: 1.862
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: Keiran D Clement; Lizzy Day; Helen Rooney; Matt Neilson; Fiona Birrell; Mark Salji; Elizabeth Norman; Ross Clark; Amit Patel; John Morrison; Hing Y Leung Journal: Asian J Androl Date: 2021 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.285