Nabeel A Shakir1, M Minhaj Siddiqui1, Arvin K George1, Michael Kongnyuy1, Richard Ho1, Michele Fascelli1, Maria J Merino2, Baris Turkbey3, Peter L Choyke3, Bradford J Wood4, Peter A Pinto5. 1. Urologic Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 2. Laboratory of Pathology, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 3. Molecular Imaging Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 4. Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute & Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 5. Urologic Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; Laboratory of Pathology, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. Electronic address: pintop@mail.nih.gov.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether supplemental biopsy of hypoechoic ultrasound lesions (HUL) incidentally found during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion-targeted prostate biopsy results in improved prostate cancer (PCa) detection. METHODS: Patients underwent MRI-TRUS-targeted biopsy as part of an ongoing prospective trial from August 2007 to February 2015. For men with HUL, the biopsy pathology of HUL and MRI lesions was classified according to the updated 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading system. The detection of PCa by MRI-targeted biopsy with and without HUL biopsy was compared. RESULTS: Of 1260 men in the trial, 106 underwent biopsy of 119 HULs. PCa was diagnosed in 52 out of 106 men (49%) by biopsy of either MRI lesions or HUL. Biopsy of HUL in addition to MRI lesions resulted in 4 additional diagnoses of high-grade (ISUP grades 3-5) PCa versus biopsy of MRI lesions alone (20 vs 16 men, P = .046). Three of these cases were upgraded from lower grade (ISUP grades 1-2) PCa on MRI-guided biopsy alone, and only 1 case (1% of cohort) was diagnosed that would have been missed by MRI-guided biopsy alone. Supplemental biopsy of HUL did not change the PCa risk category in 96% (102 out of 106) of men with HUL. CONCLUSION: Supplemental biopsy of HUL yields a small increase in the detection of higher grade PCa as compared with biopsy of MRI lesions alone. As upgrading is rare, routinely screening for HUL during MRI-targeted biopsy remains controversial.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether supplemental biopsy of hypoechoic ultrasound lesions (HUL) incidentally found during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion-targeted prostate biopsy results in improved prostate cancer (PCa) detection. METHODS:Patients underwent MRI-TRUS-targeted biopsy as part of an ongoing prospective trial from August 2007 to February 2015. For men with HUL, the biopsy pathology of HUL and MRI lesions was classified according to the updated 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading system. The detection of PCa by MRI-targeted biopsy with and without HUL biopsy was compared. RESULTS: Of 1260 men in the trial, 106 underwent biopsy of 119 HULs. PCa was diagnosed in 52 out of 106 men (49%) by biopsy of either MRI lesions or HUL. Biopsy of HUL in addition to MRI lesions resulted in 4 additional diagnoses of high-grade (ISUP grades 3-5) PCa versus biopsy of MRI lesions alone (20 vs 16 men, P = .046). Three of these cases were upgraded from lower grade (ISUP grades 1-2) PCa on MRI-guided biopsy alone, and only 1 case (1% of cohort) was diagnosed that would have been missed by MRI-guided biopsy alone. Supplemental biopsy of HUL did not change the PCa risk category in 96% (102 out of 106) of men with HUL. CONCLUSION: Supplemental biopsy of HUL yields a small increase in the detection of higher grade PCa as compared with biopsy of MRI lesions alone. As upgrading is rare, routinely screening for HUL during MRI-targeted biopsy remains controversial.
Authors: Berrend G Muller; Joanna H Shih; Sandeep Sankineni; Jamie Marko; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Arvin Koruthu George; Jean J M C H de la Rosette; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-06-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jonathan I Epstein; Lars Egevad; Mahul B Amin; Brett Delahunt; John R Srigley; Peter A Humphrey Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Claartje Gosselaar; Monique J Roobol; Stijn Roemeling; Tineke Wolters; Geert J L H van Leenders; Fritz H Schröder Journal: BJU Int Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Christian P Pavlovich; Toby C Cornish; Jeffrey K Mullins; Joel Fradin; Lynda Z Mettee; Jason T Connor; Adam C Reese; Frederic B Askin; Rachael Luck; Jonathan I Epstein; Harry B Burke Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2013-04-02 Impact factor: 3.498
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: Peter R Carroll; J Kellogg Parsons; Gerald Andriole; Robert R Bahnson; Daniel A Barocas; William J Catalona; Douglas M Dahl; John W Davis; Jonathan I Epstein; Ruth B Etzioni; Veda N Giri; George P Hemstreet; Mark H Kawachi; Paul H Lange; Kevin R Loughlin; William Lowrance; Paul Maroni; James Mohler; Todd M Morgan; Robert B Nadler; Michael Poch; Chuck Scales; Terrence M Shanefelt; Andrew J Vickers; Robert Wake; Dorothy A Shead; Maria Ho Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Abhinav Sidana; Matthew J Watson; Arvin K George; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Srinivas Vourganti; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Akhil Muthigi; Mahir Maruf; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Jeffrey W Nix; Maria J Merino; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 3.498