Literature DB >> 27118268

In-bore magnetic resonance-guided transrectal biopsy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Ely R Felker1, Stephanie A Lee-Felker2, John Feller3, Daniel J Margolis2, David S Lu2, Robert Princenthal4, Stuart May3, Martin Cohen4, Jiaoti Huang5, Jeffrey Yoshida6, Bernadette Greenwood3, Hyun J Kim2, Steven S Raman2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the safety and efficacy of in-bore magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy (MRGB) for detection of clinically significant disease (CSD) in untreated men with known or suspected prostate cancer (PCa).
METHODS: 512 patients underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (Mp-MRI) followed by MRGB at one of three centers in this IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant, retrospective study. Exclusion criteria were prior prostate cancer therapy and incomplete Mp-MRI (n = 51). Patients (n = 461) were analyzed in two subcohorts: no prior PCa (NP) (n = 381) and active surveillance (AS) (n = 80). Detection rates of PCa and CSD (Gleason Score ≥3 + 4) were calculated and compared among subcohorts and by Mp-MRI assessment grade. Logistic regression was performed to identify predictors for detection of PCa and CSD.
RESULTS: Mean patient age was 66 years, median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 7.5 ng/mL, and median prostate volume was 54 cc. A mean of 1.7 targets was sampled per gland. Significant adverse events (urosepsis and hematuria with obstruction) occurred in 1% (5/461). Overall PCa detection rates were 51% per patient (233/461) and 37% per lesion (282/757). 65% (151/233) of men with detected PCa had CSD. Per-patient PCa detection rates in the NP and AS subcohorts were 47% (178/381) and 69% (55/80), respectively, significantly higher in the AS group (p < 0.001). CSD was detected in 10% (47/451), 43% (96/225) and 84% (68/81) of lesions with Mp-MRI assessment grades of 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Older age, higher PSA, and lower prostate volume predicted MRGB detection of CSD (OR 1.07 and p = 0.003, OR 1.1 and p = 0.014, and OR 0.98 and p = 0.032, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: In-bore MRGB is safe and high yield for detection of CSD.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Active surveillance; MRI-Guided biopsy; Prostate cancer

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27118268     DOI: 10.1007/s00261-016-0750-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)


  13 in total

1.  In-bore MRI-guided biopsy: can it optimize the need for periodic biopsies in prostate cancer patients undergoing active surveillance? A pilot test-retest reliability study.

Authors:  Kareem K Elfatairy; Christopher P Filson; Martin G Sanda; Adeboye O Osunkoya; Rachel L Geller; Sherif G Nour
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-02-13       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  In-Bore MRI-guided Prostate Biopsies in Patients with Prior Positive Transrectal US-guided Biopsy Results: Pathologic Outcomes and Predictors of Missed Cancers.

Authors:  Kareem K Elfatairy; Christopher P Filson; Martin G Sanda; Adeboye O Osunkoya; Sherif G Nour
Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer       Date:  2020-09-25

3.  In-bore biopsies of the prostate assisted by a remote-controlled manipulator at 1.5 T.

Authors:  Nicolas Linder; Alexander Schaudinn; Tim-Ole Petersen; Nikolaos Bailis; Patrick Stumpp; Lars-Christian Horn; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Thomas Kahn; Michael Moche; Harald Busse
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2019-05-09       Impact factor: 2.310

4.  Retrospective comparison of direct in-bore magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy and fusion-guided biopsy in patients with MRI lesions which are likely or highly likely to be clinically significant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Wulphert Venderink; Marloes van der Leest; Annemarijke van Luijtelaar; Wendy J M van de Ven; Jurgen J Fütterer; J P Michiel Sedelaar; Henkjan J Huisman
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-09-04       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 5.  Imaging as a Personalized Biomarker for Prostate Cancer Risk Stratification.

Authors:  Kyle H Gennaro; Kristin K Porter; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Samuel J Galgano; Soroush Rais-Bahrami
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2018-11-30

6.  Focal laser ablation as clinical treatment of prostate cancer: report from a Delphi consensus project.

Authors:  A van Luijtelaar; B M Greenwood; H U Ahmed; A B Barqawi; E Barret; J G R Bomers; M A Brausi; P L Choyke; M R Cooperberg; S Eggener; J F Feller; F Frauscher; A K George; R G Hindley; S F M Jenniskens; L Klotz; G Kovacs; U Lindner; S Loeb; D J Margolis; L S Marks; S May; T D Mcclure; R Montironi; S G Nour; A Oto; T J Polascik; A R Rastinehad; T M De Reyke; J S Reijnen; J J M C H de la Rosette; J P M Sedelaar; D S Sperling; E M Walser; J F Ward; A Villers; S Ghai; J J Fütterer
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-01-22       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 7.  Role of prostate magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance.

Authors:  Xiaosong Meng; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Samir S Taneja
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2017-06

Review 8.  A critical comparison of techniques for MRI-targeted biopsy of the prostate.

Authors:  Francesco Giganti; Caroline M Moore
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2017-06

Review 9.  MRI findings guiding selection of active surveillance for prostate cancer: a review of emerging evidence.

Authors:  Zachary A Glaser; Kristin K Porter; John V Thomas; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Soroush Rais-Bahrami
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2018-09

10.  Yield of Repeat Targeted Direct in-Bore Magnetic Resonance-Guided Prostate Biopsy (MRGB) of the Same Lesions in Men Having a Prior Negative Targeted MRGB.

Authors:  Wulphert Venderink; Sjoerd Fm Jenniskens; J P Michiel Sedelaar; Tsutomu Tamada; Jurgen J Fütterer
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2018-06-14       Impact factor: 3.500

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.