M Minhaj Siddiqui1, Arvin K George1, Rachel Rubin1, Soroush Rais-Bahrami1, Howard L Parnes1, Maria J Merino1, Richard M Simon1, Baris Turkbey1, Peter L Choyke1, Bradford J Wood1, Peter A Pinto2. 1. Urologic Oncology Branch (MMS, AKG, RR, SRB, BJW, PAP), Molecular Imaging Program (BT, PLC), Division of Cancer Prevention (HLP), Laboratory of Pathology (MJM), and Center for Interventional Oncology, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences (BJW, PAP), National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; Biometric Research Branch, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD (RMS); Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Maryland, Baltimore MD (MMS); Departments of Urology and Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL (SRB). 2. Urologic Oncology Branch (MMS, AKG, RR, SRB, BJW, PAP), Molecular Imaging Program (BT, PLC), Division of Cancer Prevention (HLP), Laboratory of Pathology (MJM), and Center for Interventional Oncology, Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences (BJW, PAP), National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; Biometric Research Branch, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD (RMS); Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Maryland, Baltimore MD (MMS); Departments of Urology and Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL (SRB) pintop@mail.nih.gov.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Use of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging to improve prostate biopsy efficiency is rapidly gaining in popularity. The aim of this study was to assess the biopsy efficiency of MR/ultrasound (MR/US) fusion-guided ("targeted") biopsies vs extended-sextant 12-core ("standard") biopsies for overall and high-grade prostate cancer detection. METHODS: From August 2007 to February 2014, 1003 men were enrolled in a prospective trial comparing the diagnostic yield of targeted and standard prostate biopsies performed during the same session. A total of 17 619 biopsy cores were reviewed. Biopsy efficiency was determined by dividing the total number of cores by the number of positive cores obtained. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: A mean of 12.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 12.2 to 12.3) standard and 5.3 (95% CI = 5.1 to 5.5) targeted biopsy cores were obtained from each patient. Targeted biopsy detected 461 cases of prostate cancer, of which 173 (37.5%) were high grade (Gleason score ≥ 4 + 3), while standard biopsy detected 469 cases of prostate cancer, of which 122 (26.5%) were high grade. The percentage of biopsy cores positive for prostate cancer, irrespective of grade, was statistically significantly higher for targeted than for standard biopsies (27.9% vs 13.5%, respectively, P < .001), with 11.5 targeted cores vs 26.2 standard cores utilized per diagnosis of prostate cancer. For detection of high-grade cancer, 30.7 targeted vs 100.8 standard cores were utilized per diagnosis. CONCLUSION: In men with MR-visible prostate lesions, targeted biopsy is more efficient than standard biopsy, diagnosing a similar number of cancer cases and more high-grade cases while sampling 56.1% fewer biopsy cores. Published by Oxford University Press 2016. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the United States.
BACKGROUND: Use of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging to improve prostate biopsy efficiency is rapidly gaining in popularity. The aim of this study was to assess the biopsy efficiency of MR/ultrasound (MR/US) fusion-guided ("targeted") biopsies vs extended-sextant 12-core ("standard") biopsies for overall and high-grade prostate cancer detection. METHODS: From August 2007 to February 2014, 1003 men were enrolled in a prospective trial comparing the diagnostic yield of targeted and standard prostate biopsies performed during the same session. A total of 17 619 biopsy cores were reviewed. Biopsy efficiency was determined by dividing the total number of cores by the number of positive cores obtained. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: A mean of 12.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 12.2 to 12.3) standard and 5.3 (95% CI = 5.1 to 5.5) targeted biopsy cores were obtained from each patient. Targeted biopsy detected 461 cases of prostate cancer, of which 173 (37.5%) were high grade (Gleason score ≥ 4 + 3), while standard biopsy detected 469 cases of prostate cancer, of which 122 (26.5%) were high grade. The percentage of biopsy cores positive for prostate cancer, irrespective of grade, was statistically significantly higher for targeted than for standard biopsies (27.9% vs 13.5%, respectively, P < .001), with 11.5 targeted cores vs 26.2 standard cores utilized per diagnosis of prostate cancer. For detection of high-grade cancer, 30.7 targeted vs 100.8 standard cores were utilized per diagnosis. CONCLUSION: In men with MR-visible prostate lesions, targeted biopsy is more efficient than standard biopsy, diagnosing a similar number of cancer cases and more high-grade cases while sampling 56.1% fewer biopsy cores. Published by Oxford University Press 2016. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the United States.
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: Nabeel A Shakir; Arvin K George; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Jason T Rothwax; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Lambros Stamatakis; Daniel Su; Chinonyerem Okoro; Dima Raskolnikov; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Richard Simon; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-08-09 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Simpa S Salami; Manish A Vira; Baris Turkbey; Mathew Fakhoury; Oksana Yaskiv; Robert Villani; Eran Ben-Levi; Ardeshir R Rastinehad Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-06-10 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Soroush Rais-Bahrami; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Baris Turkbey; Lambros Stamatakis; Jennifer Logan; Anthony N Hoang; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Srinivas Vourganti; Hong Truong; Jochen Kruecker; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Morgan R Pokorny; Maarten de Rooij; Earl Duncan; Fritz H Schröder; Robert Parkinson; Jelle O Barentsz; Leslie C Thompson Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-03-14 Impact factor: 20.096
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: M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Hong Truong; Lambros Stamatakis; Srinivas Vourganti; Jeffrey Nix; Anthony N Hoang; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Brian Shuch; Michael Weintraub; Jochen Kruecker; Hayet Amalou; Baris Turkbey; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-06-12 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Sooah Kim; Ruth P Lim; Nicole Hindman; Fang-Ming Deng; James S Babb; Samir S Taneja Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-06-20 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Aaron Reed; Luca F Valle; Uma Shankavaram; Andra Krauze; Aradhana Kaushal; Erica Schott; Theresa Cooley-Zgela; Bradford Wood; Peter Pinto; Peter Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Deborah E Citrin Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2016-12-18 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Julie Y An; Abhinav Sidana; Sarah A Holzman; Joseph A Baiocco; Sherif Mehralivand; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Matthew J Watson; Arvin K George; Mahir Maruf; Thomas P Frye; Akhil Muthigi; Michael Kongnyuy; Subin G Valayil; Peter A Pinto Journal: Future Oncol Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 3.404
Authors: Akhil Muthigi; Arvin K George; Abhinav Sidana; Michael Kongnyuy; Richard Simon; Vanessa Moreno; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-08-28 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: M Maruf; M Fascelli; A K George; M M Siddiqui; M Kongnyuy; J M DiBianco; A Muthigi; S Valayil; A Sidana; T P Frye; A Kilchevsky; P L Choyke; B Turkbey; B J Wood; P A Pinto Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2017-02-21 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Vidhush K Yarlagadda; Win Shun Lai; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Kristin K Porter; Jeffrey W Nix; John V Thomas; Soroush Rais-Bahrami Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2018 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.630