Literature DB >> 28063613

Why and Where do We Miss Significant Prostate Cancer with Multi-parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging followed by Magnetic Resonance-guided and Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Men?

Martijn G Schouten1, Marloes van der Leest2, Morgan Pokorny3, Martijn Hoogenboom2, Jelle O Barentsz2, Les C Thompson3, Jurgen J Fütterer2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Knowledge of significant prostate (sPCa) locations being missed with magnetic resonance (MR)- and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy (Bx) may help to improve these techniques.
OBJECTIVE: To identify the location of sPCa lesions being missed with MR- and TRUS-Bx. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In a referral center, 223 consecutive Bx-naive men with elevated prostate specific antigen level and/or abnormal digital rectal examination were included. Histopathologically-proven cancer locations, Gleason score, and tumor length were determined. INTERVENTION: All patients underwent multi-parametric MRI and 12-core systematic TRUS-Bx. MR-Bx was performed in all patients with suspicion of PCa on multi-parametric MRI (n=142). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Cancer locations were compared between MR- and TRUS-Bx. Proportions were expressed as percentages, and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In total, 191 lesions were found in 108 patients with sPCa. From these lesion 74% (141/191) were defined as sPCa on either MR- or TRUS-Bx. MR-Bx detected 74% (105/141) of these lesions and 61% (86/141) with TRUS-Bx. TRUS-Bx detected more lesions compared with MR-Bx (140 vs 109). However, these lesions were often low risk (39%). Significant lesions missed with MR-Bx most often had involvement of dorsolateral (58%) and apical (37%) segments and missed segments with TRUS-Bx were located anteriorly (79%), anterior midprostate (50%), and anterior apex (23%).
CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques have difficulties in detecting apical lesions. MR-Bx most often missed cancer with involvement of the dorsolateral part (58%) and TRUS-Bx with involvement of the anterior part (79%). PATIENT
SUMMARY: Both biopsy techniques miss cancer in specific locations within the prostate. Identification of these lesions may help to improve these techniques.
Copyright © 2016 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biopsy; Cancer; Location; MRI; Prostate

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28063613     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.12.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  34 in total

1.  How to make clinical decisions to avoid unnecessary prostate screening in biopsy-naïve men with PI-RADs v2 score ≤ 3?

Authors:  Yu Zhang; Na Zeng; FengBo Zhang; YangXinRui Huang; Ye Tian
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-08-31       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer.

Authors:  Frank-Jan H Drost; Daniël F Osses; Daan Nieboer; Ewout W Steyerberg; Chris H Bangma; Monique J Roobol; Ivo G Schoots
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-04-25

3.  Combination of 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT and Multiparametric MRI Improves the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Lesion-by-Lesion Analysis.

Authors:  Mengxia Chen; Qing Zhang; Chengwei Zhang; Xiaozhi Zhao; Giancarlo Marra; Jie Gao; Xiaoyu Lv; Bing Zhang; Yao Fu; Feng Wang; Xuefeng Qiu; Hongqian Guo
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2018-12-14       Impact factor: 10.057

4.  [Importance of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-guided fusion biopsy for the detection and monitoring of prostate cancer].

Authors:  R Ganzer; W Brummeisl; F S Siokou; R Scheck; T Franz; P Ho-Thi; A Mangold
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 0.639

5.  Contrast-enhanced ultrasound with dispersion analysis for the localization of prostate cancer: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  Arnoud W Postema; Maudy C W Gayet; Ruud J G van Sloun; Rogier R Wildeboer; Christophe K Mannaerts; C Dilara Savci-Heijink; Stefan G Schalk; Amir Kajtazovic; Henk van der Poel; Peter F A Mulders; Harrie P Beerlage; Massimo Mischi; Hessel Wijkstra
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2020-02-20       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Shear-wave elastography: role in clinically significant prostate cancer with false-negative magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Li-Hua Xiang; Yan Fang; Jing Wan; Guang Xu; Ming-Hua Yao; Shi-Si Ding; Hui Liu; Rong Wu
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-05-29       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Robotic-assisted transrectal MRI-guided biopsy. Technical feasibility and role in the current diagnosis of prostate cancer: an initial single-center experience.

Authors:  Joan C Vilanova; Anna Pérez de Tudela; Josep Puig; Martijn Hoogenboom; Joaquim Barceló; Montse Planas; Sònia Sala; Santiago Thió-Henestrosa
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-07-23

8.  Prostate cancer: diagnostic yield of modified transrectal ultrasound-guided twelve-core combined biopsy (targeted plus systematic biopsies) using prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Chorog Song; Sung Yoon Park
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2021-06-28

Review 9.  Transperineal prostate biopsy: The modern gold standard to prostate cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Gernot Ortner; Eirini Tzanaki; Bhavan Prasad Rai; Udo Nagele; Theodoros Tokas
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2020-10-09

10.  Comparison of conventional transrectal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and micro-ultrasound for visualizing prostate cancer in an active surveillance population: A feasibility study.

Authors:  Gregg Eure; Daryl Fanney; Jefferson Lin; Brian Wodlinger; Sangeet Ghai
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2018-08-30       Impact factor: 1.862

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.