N Westhoff1, F P Siegel2, D Hausmann3, M Polednik4, J von Hardenberg2, M S Michel2, M Ritter2. 1. Department of Urology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany. niklas.westhoff@medma.uni-heidelberg.de. 2. Department of Urology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany. 3. Department of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Comparing the accuracy of MRI/ultrasound-guided target-biopsy by transrectal biopsy (TRB) with elastic versus rigid image fusion versus transperineal biopsy (TPB) with rigid image fusion in a standardized setting. METHODS: Target-biopsy of six differently sized and located lesions was performed on customized CIRS 070L prostate phantoms. Lesions were only MRI-visible. After prior MRI for lesion location, one targeted biopsy per lesion was obtained by TRB with elastic image fusion with Artemis™ (Eigen, USA), TRB with rigid image fusion with real-time virtual sonography (Hitachi, Japan) and TPB with rigid image fusion with a brachytherapy approach (Elekta, Sweden), each on a phantom of 50, 100 and 150 ml prostate volume. The needle trajectories were marked by contrast agent and detected in a postinterventional MRI. RESULTS: Overall target detection rate was 79.6% with a slight superiority for the TPB (83.3 vs. 77.8 vs. 77.8%). TRB with elastic image fusion showed the highest overall precision [median distance to lesion center 2.37 mm (0.14-4.18 mm)], independent of prostate volume. Anterior lesions were significantly more precisely hit than transitional and basal lesions (p = 0.034; p = 0.015) with comparable accuracy for TRB with elastic image fusion and TPB. In general, TRB with rigid image fusion was inferior [median 3.15 mm (0.37-10.62 mm)], particularly in small lesions. CONCLUSION: All biopsy techniques allow detection of clinically significant tumors with a median error of 2-3 mm. Elastic image fusion appears to be the most precise technique, independent of prostate volume, target size or location.
PURPOSE: Comparing the accuracy of MRI/ultrasound-guided target-biopsy by transrectal biopsy (TRB) with elastic versus rigid image fusion versus transperineal biopsy (TPB) with rigid image fusion in a standardized setting. METHODS: Target-biopsy of six differently sized and located lesions was performed on customized CIRS 070L prostate phantoms. Lesions were only MRI-visible. After prior MRI for lesion location, one targeted biopsy per lesion was obtained by TRB with elastic image fusion with Artemis™ (Eigen, USA), TRB with rigid image fusion with real-time virtual sonography (Hitachi, Japan) and TPB with rigid image fusion with a brachytherapy approach (Elekta, Sweden), each on a phantom of 50, 100 and 150 ml prostate volume. The needle trajectories were marked by contrast agent and detected in a postinterventional MRI. RESULTS: Overall target detection rate was 79.6% with a slight superiority for the TPB (83.3 vs. 77.8 vs. 77.8%). TRB with elastic image fusion showed the highest overall precision [median distance to lesion center 2.37 mm (0.14-4.18 mm)], independent of prostate volume. Anterior lesions were significantly more precisely hit than transitional and basal lesions (p = 0.034; p = 0.015) with comparable accuracy for TRB with elastic image fusion and TPB. In general, TRB with rigid image fusion was inferior [median 3.15 mm (0.37-10.62 mm)], particularly in small lesions. CONCLUSION: All biopsy techniques allow detection of clinically significant tumors with a median error of 2-3 mm. Elastic image fusion appears to be the most precise technique, independent of prostate volume, target size or location.
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: Caroline M A Hoeks; Martijn G Schouten; Joyce G R Bomers; Stefan P Hoogendoorn; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Thomas Hambrock; Henk Vergunst; J P Michiel Sedelaar; Jurgen J Fütterer; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ivo G Schoots; Monique J Roobol; Daan Nieboer; Chris H Bangma; Ewout W Steyerberg; M G Myriam Hunink Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-12-03 Impact factor: 20.096
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: Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Manuel Madariaga-Venegas; Nicolas Aviles; Juan Carlos Roman; Ivan Gallegos; Mauricio Burotto Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2019-09-02 Impact factor: 3.092
Authors: Maudy C W Gayet; Anouk A M A van der Aa; Harrie P Beerlage; Bart Ph Schrier; Maaike Gielens; Roel Heesakkers; Gerrit J Jager; Peter F A Mulders; Hessel Wijkstra Journal: Prostate Cancer Date: 2020-04-03
Authors: Qian Li; Hong Lu; Jung Choi; Kenneth Gage; Sebastian Feuerlein; Julio M Pow-Sang; Robert Gillies; Yoganand Balagurunathan Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2019-12-03 Impact factor: 3.909