Literature DB >> 27861110

In-Bore 3-T MR-guided Transrectal Targeted Prostate Biopsy: Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2-based Diagnostic Performance for Detection of Prostate Cancer.

Nelly Tan1, Wei-Chan Lin1, Pooria Khoshnoodi1, Nazanin H Asvadi1, Jeffrey Yoshida1, Daniel J A Margolis1, David S K Lu1, Holden Wu1, Kyung Hyun Sung1, David Y Lu1, Jaioti Huang1, Steven S Raman1.   

Abstract

Purpose To determine the diagnostic yield of in-bore 3-T magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-guided prostate biopsy and stratify performance according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) versions 1 and 2. Materials and Methods This study was HIPAA compliant and institution review board approved. In-bore 3-T MR-guided prostate biopsy was performed in 134 targets in 106 men who (a) had not previously undergone prostate biopsy, (b) had prior negative biopsy findings with increased prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, or (c) had a prior history of prostate cancer with increasing PSA level. Clinical, diagnostic 3-T MR imaging was performed with in-bore guided prostate biopsy, and pathology data were collected. The diagnostic yields of MR-guided biopsy per patient and target were analyzed, and differences between biopsy targets with negative and positive findings were determined. Results of logistic regression and areas under the curve were compared between PI-RADS versions 1 and 2. Results Prostate cancer was detected in 63 of 106 patients (59.4%) and in 72 of 134 targets (53.7%) with 3-T MR imaging. Forty-nine of 72 targets (68.0%) had clinically significant cancer (Gleason score ≥ 7). One complication occurred (urosepsis, 0.9%). Patients who had positive target findings had lower apparent diffusion coefficient values (875 × 10-6 mm2/sec vs 1111 × 10-6 mm2/sec, respectively; P < .01), smaller prostate volume (47.2 cm3 vs 75.4 cm3, respectively; P < .01), higher PSA density (0.16 vs 0.10, respectively; P < .01), and higher proportion of PI-RADS version 2 category 3-5 scores when compared with patients with negative target findings. MR targets with PI-RADS version 2 category 2, 3, 4, and 5 scores had a positive diagnostic yield of three of 23 (13.0%), six of 31 (19.4%), 39 of 50 (78.0%), and 24 of 29 (82.8%) targets, respectively. No differences were detected in areas under the curve for PI-RADS version 2 versus 1. Conclusion In-bore 3-T MR-guided biopsy is safe and effective for prostate cancer diagnosis when stratified according to PI-RADS versions 1 and 2. ©RSNA, 2016.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27861110      PMCID: PMC5375629          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016152827

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  18 in total

1.  Use of MR imaging to determine preservation of the neurovascular bundles at robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.

Authors:  Timothy D McClure; Daniel J A Margolis; Robert E Reiter; James W Sayre; M Albert Thomas; Rajakumar Nagarajan; Mittul Gulati; Steven S Raman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-01-24       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Prospective Evaluation of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for Prostate Cancer Detection.

Authors:  Francesca V Mertan; Matthew D Greer; Joanna H Shih; Arvin K George; Michael Kongnyuy; Akhil Muthigi; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-04-18       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference.

Authors:  H A Vargas; A M Hötker; D A Goldman; C S Moskowitz; T Gondo; K Matsumoto; B Ehdaie; S Woo; S W Fine; V E Reuter; E Sala; H Hricak
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-09-22       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging guided in-bore prostate biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in biopsy naïve men with elevated prostate specific antigen.

Authors:  Michael Quentin; Dirk Blondin; Christian Arsov; Lars Schimmöller; Andreas Hiester; Erhard Godehardt; Peter Albers; Gerald Antoch; Robert Rabenalt
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2014-05-24       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Areas suspicious for prostate cancer: MR-guided biopsy in patients with at least one transrectal US-guided biopsy with a negative finding--multiparametric MR imaging for detection and biopsy planning.

Authors:  Tobias Franiel; Carsten Stephan; Andreas Erbersdobler; Ekkehart Dietz; Andreas Maxeiner; Nina Hell; Alexander Huppertz; Kurt Miller; Ralph Strecker; Bernd Hamm
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-01-13       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Prospective randomized trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided in-bore biopsy to MRI-ultrasound fusion and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsies.

Authors:  Christian Arsov; Robert Rabenalt; Dirk Blondin; Michael Quentin; Andreas Hiester; Erhard Godehardt; Helmut E Gabbert; Nikolaus Becker; Gerald Antoch; Peter Albers; Lars Schimmöller
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-06-23       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  Prostate biopsy in the supine position in a standard 1.5-T scanner under real time MR-imaging control using a MR-compatible endorectal biopsy device.

Authors:  K Engelhard; H P Hollenbach; B Kiefer; A Winkel; K Goeb; D Engehausen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-02-01       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Correlation of magnetic resonance imaging tumor volume with histopathology.

Authors:  Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Omer Aras; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Vijay Shah; Marcelino Bernardo; Thomas Pohida; Dagane Daar; Compton Benjamin; Yolanda L McKinney; W Marston Linehan; Bradford J Wood; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2012-08-15       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Assessment of PI-RADS v2 for the Detection of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Moritz Kasel-Seibert; Thomas Lehmann; René Aschenbach; Felix V Guettler; Mohamed Abubrig; Marc-Oliver Grimm; Ulf Teichgraeber; Tobias Franiel
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2016-01-19       Impact factor: 3.528

10.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012.

Authors:  Jelle O Barentsz; Jonathan Richenberg; Richard Clements; Peter Choyke; Sadhna Verma; Geert Villeirs; Olivier Rouviere; Vibeke Logager; Jurgen J Fütterer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-02-10       Impact factor: 5.315

View more
  21 in total

1.  Utility of Multiparametric MRI for Predicting Residual Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer After Focal Laser Ablation.

Authors:  Ely R Felker; Steven S Raman; David S K Lu; Mitch Tuttle; Daniel J Margolis; Fuad F ElKhoury; James Sayre; Leonard S Marks
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2019-07-30       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Assessment of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1 false-positive category 4 and 5 lesions in clinically significant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Xiangyu Wang; Weizong Liu; Yi Lei; Guangyao Wu; Fan Lin
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2021-03-12

3.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging - Transrectal ultrasound-guided cognitive fusion biopsy of the prostate: Clinically significant cancer detection rates stratified by the Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System version 2 assessment category.

Authors:  Susan John; Steven Cooper; Rodney H Breau; Trevor A Flood; Ilias Cagiannos; Luke T Lavallee; Christopher Morash; Joseph O'sullivan; Nicola Schieda
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2018-06-19       Impact factor: 1.862

4.  Pathological and 3 Tesla Volumetric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Predictors of Biochemical Recurrence after Robotic Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Correlation with Whole Mount Histopathology.

Authors:  Nelly Tan; Luyao Shen; Pooria Khoshnoodi; Héctor E Alcalá; Weixia Yu; William Hsu; Robert E Reiter; David Y Lu; Steven S Raman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2017-11-08       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 5.  PI-RADS v2: Current standing and future outlook.

Authors:  Clayton P Smith; Barış Türkbey
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2018-05-01

6.  Utility of Restriction Spectrum Imaging Among Men Undergoing First-Time Biopsy for Suspected Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Ely R Felker; Steven S Raman; Sepideh Shakeri; Sohrab A Mirak; Amirhossein M Bajgiran; Lorna Kwan; Pooria Khoshnoodi; Fuad F ElKhoury; Daniel J A Margolis; David Karow; David S K Lu; Nate White; Leonard S Marks
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2019-04-30       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  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

8.  3T multiparametric MR imaging, PIRADSv2-based detection of index prostate cancer lesions in the transition zone and the peripheral zone using whole mount histopathology as reference standard.

Authors:  Nazanin Hajarol Asvadi; Sohrab Afshari Mirak; Amirhossein Mohammadian Bajgiran; Pooria Khoshnoodi; Pornphan Wibulpolprasert; Daniel Margolis; Anthony Sisk; Robert E Reiter; Steven S Raman
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2018-11

9.  Risk Stratification Among Men With Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 Category 3 Transition Zone Lesions: Is Biopsy Always Necessary?

Authors:  Ely R Felker; Steven S Raman; Daniel J Margolis; David S K Lu; Nicholas Shaheen; Shyam Natarajan; Devi Sharma; Jiaoti Huang; Fred Dorey; Leonard S Marks
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2017-08-31       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  SpinoBot: An MRI-Guided Needle Positioning System for Spinal Cellular Therapeutics.

Authors:  Alexander Squires; John N Oshinski; Nicholas M Boulis; Zion Tsz Ho Tse
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2017-11-17       Impact factor: 3.934

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.