Akhil Muthigi1, Arvin K George2, Abhinav Sidana1, Michael Kongnyuy1, Richard Simon3, Vanessa Moreno4, Maria J Merino4, Peter L Choyke5, Baris Turkbey5, Bradford J Wood6, Peter A Pinto1. 1. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 2. Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Biometric Research Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 4. Laboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 5. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. 6. Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute & Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and fusion biopsy detect more high risk prostate cancer and less low risk prostate cancer than systematic biopsy. However, there remains a small subset of patients in whom systematic biopsy captures higher grade disease than fusion biopsy. We sought to identify potential mechanisms of the failure of fusion biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging followed by fusion biopsy and systematic biopsy from 2007 to 2014. In patients in whom disease was upgraded to clinically significant disease (Gleason 7 or greater) by systematic biopsy over fusion biopsy, independent re-review of magnetic resonance imaging, archived biopsy imaging and whole mount pathology as well as needle coordinate mapping were performed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was done to determine predictors of upgrading by systematic biopsy. RESULTS: Disease was upgraded based on systematic biopsy over fusion biopsy in 135 of 1,003 patients (13.5%), of whom only 62 (6.2%) were upgraded to intermediate (Gleason 7) and high risk (Gleason 8 or greater) prostate cancer (51 or 5.1% and 11 or 1.1%, respectively). On multivariate analysis lower prostate specific antigen (p <0.001), higher magnetic resonance imaging prostate volume (p <0.001) and a lower number of target cores (p = 0.001) were predictors of upgrading by systematic biopsy. Main mechanisms of under grading by fusion biopsy included multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging reader oversight, presence of magnetic resonance imaging invisible cancer, fusion biopsy technique error and intralesion Gleason heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging and fusion biopsy rarely missed clinically significant prostate cancer as only 62 of 1,003 cases (6.2%) were upgraded to clinically significant disease by systematic biopsy. Imaging and biopsy techniques are continually refined. Further studies will help clarify mechanisms of fusion biopsy failure and the patient populations that benefit from systematic biopsy in addition to fusion biopsy.
PURPOSE: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and fusion biopsy detect more high risk prostate cancer and less low risk prostate cancer than systematic biopsy. However, there remains a small subset of patients in whom systematic biopsy captures higher grade disease than fusion biopsy. We sought to identify potential mechanisms of the failure of fusion biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging followed by fusion biopsy and systematic biopsy from 2007 to 2014. In patients in whom disease was upgraded to clinically significant disease (Gleason 7 or greater) by systematic biopsy over fusion biopsy, independent re-review of magnetic resonance imaging, archived biopsy imaging and whole mount pathology as well as needle coordinate mapping were performed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was done to determine predictors of upgrading by systematic biopsy. RESULTS: Disease was upgraded based on systematic biopsy over fusion biopsy in 135 of 1,003 patients (13.5%), of whom only 62 (6.2%) were upgraded to intermediate (Gleason 7) and high risk (Gleason 8 or greater) prostate cancer (51 or 5.1% and 11 or 1.1%, respectively). On multivariate analysis lower prostate specific antigen (p <0.001), higher magnetic resonance imaging prostate volume (p <0.001) and a lower number of target cores (p = 0.001) were predictors of upgrading by systematic biopsy. Main mechanisms of under grading by fusion biopsy included multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging reader oversight, presence of magnetic resonance imaging invisible cancer, fusion biopsy technique error and intralesion Gleason heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging and fusion biopsy rarely missed clinically significant prostate cancer as only 62 of 1,003 cases (6.2%) were upgraded to clinically significant disease by systematic biopsy. Imaging and biopsy techniques are continually refined. Further studies will help clarify mechanisms of fusion biopsy failure and the patient populations that benefit from systematic biopsy in addition to fusion biopsy.
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Sheng Xu; Jochen Kruecker; Julia Locklin; Yuxi Pang; Marcelino Bernardo; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 5.588
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: Jeffrey W Nix; Baris Turkbey; Anthony Hoang; Dmitry Volkin; Nitin Yerram; Celene Chua; W Marston Linehan; Bradford Wood; Peter Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-10-04 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: James S Wysock; Neil Mendhiratta; Fabio Zattoni; Xiaosong Meng; Marc Bjurlin; William C Huang; Herbert Lepor; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Samir S Taneja Journal: BJU Int Date: 2016-02-25 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Raju Chelluri; Amichai Kilchevsky; Arvin K George; Abhinav Sidana; Thomas P Frye; Daniel Su; Michele Fascelli; Richard Ho; Steven F Abboud; Baris Turkbey; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-02-13 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Steven F Abboud; Arvin K George; Thomas P Frye; Richard Ho; Raju Chelluri; Michele Fascelli; Joanna Shih; Robert Villani; Eran Ben-Levi; Oksana Yaskiv; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-01-23 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Samir S Taneja; Geert Villeirs; Inderbir S Gill; Clare Allen; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore; Veeru Kasivisvanathan Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Nathan Lay; Yohannes Tsehay; Matthew D Greer; Baris Turkbey; Jin Tae Kwak; Peter L Choyke; Peter Pinto; Bradford J Wood; Ronald M Summers Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2017-06-12
Authors: M Kongnyuy; M M Siddiqui; A K George; A Muthigi; A Sidana; M Maruf; B Turkbey; P L Choyke; B J Wood; P A Pinto Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2017-04-25 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Anwar R Padhani; Jelle Barentsz; Geert Villeirs; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Daniel J Margolis; Baris Turkbey; Harriet C Thoeny; François Cornud; Masoom A Haider; Katarzyna J Macura; Clare M Tempany; Sadhna Verma; Jeffrey C Weinreb Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Annika Herlemann; Alexander Buchner; Alexander Kretschmer; Maria Apfelbeck; Christian G Stief; Christian Gratzke; Stefan Tritschler Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-05-10 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Antonio C Westphalen; Charles E McCulloch; Jordan M Anaokar; Sandeep Arora; Nimrod S Barashi; Jelle O Barentsz; Tharakeswara K Bathala; Leonardo K Bittencourt; Michael T Booker; Vaughn G Braxton; Peter R Carroll; David D Casalino; Silvia D Chang; Fergus V Coakley; Ravjot Dhatt; Steven C Eberhardt; Bryan R Foster; Adam T Froemming; Jurgen J Fütterer; Dhakshina M Ganeshan; Mark R Gertner; Lori Mankowski Gettle; Sangeet Ghai; Rajan T Gupta; Michael E Hahn; Roozbeh Houshyar; Candice Kim; Chan Kyo Kim; Chandana Lall; Daniel J A Margolis; Stephen E McRae; Aytekin Oto; Rosaleen B Parsons; Nayana U Patel; Peter A Pinto; Thomas J Polascik; Benjamin Spilseth; Juliana B Starcevich; Varaha S Tammisetti; Samir S Taneja; Baris Turkbey; Sadhna Verma; John F Ward; Christopher A Warlick; Andrew R Weinberger; Jinxing Yu; Ronald J Zagoria; Andrew B Rosenkrantz Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Julie Y An; Stephanie A Harmon; Sherif Mehralivand; Marcin Czarniecki; Clayton P Smith; Julie A Peretti; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Joanna H Shih; Baris Turkbey Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2018-12