Literature DB >> 28531902

Evaluation of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Classification in the Prediction of Tumor Aggressiveness in Targeted Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound-Fusion Biopsy.

Angelika Borkowetz1, Ivan Platzek, Marieta Toma, Theresa Renner, Roman Herout, Martin Baunacke, Michael Laniado, Gustavo B Baretton, Michael Froehner, Stefan Zastrow, Manfred P Wirth.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to evaluate the prediction of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) with respect to the prostate cancer (PCa) detection rate and tumor aggressiveness in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasound-fusion-biopsy (fusPbx) and in systematic biopsy (sysPbx).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six hundred and twenty five patients undergoing multiparametric MRI were investigated. MRI findings were classified using PI-RADS v1 or v2. All patients underwent fusPbx combined with sysPbx (comPbx). The lesion with the highest PI-RADS was defined as maximum PI-RADS (maxPI-RADS). Gleason Score ≥7 (3 + 4) was defined as significant PCa.
RESULTS: The overall PCa detection rate was 51% (n = 321; 39% significant PCa). The detection rate was 43% in fusPbx (n = 267; 34% significant PCa) and 36% in sysPbx (n = 223; 27% significant PCa). Nine percentage of significant PCa were detected by sysPbx alone. A total of 1,162 lesions were investigated. The detection rate of significant PCa in lesions with PI-RADS 2, 3, 4, and 5 were 9% (18/206), 12% (56/450), 27% (98/358), and 61% (90/148) respectively. maxPI-RADS ≥4 was the strongest predictor for the detection of significant PCa in comPbx (OR 2.77; 95% CI 1.81-4.24; p < 0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: maxPI-RADS is the strongest predictor for the detection of significant PCa in comPbx. Due to a high detection rate of additional significant PCa in sysPbx, fusPbx should still be combined with sysPbx.
© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy; Multiparametric MRI; Prediction; Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System; Prostate cancer; Systematic biopsy

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28531902     DOI: 10.1159/000477263

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Int        ISSN: 0042-1138            Impact factor:   2.089


  10 in total

1.  Evidence-based guideline recommendations on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer: A Cancer Care Ontario updated clinical practice guideline.

Authors:  Masoom A Haider; Judy Brown; Jospeh L K Chin; Nauthan Perlis; Nicola Schieda; Andrew Loblaw
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2022-02       Impact factor: 1.862

Review 2.  MRI in early prostate cancer detection: how to manage indeterminate or equivocal PI-RADS 3 lesions?

Authors:  Ivo G Schoots
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2018-02

Review 3.  The current role of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Olivier Rouviere; Paul Cezar Moldovan
Journal:  Asian J Urol       Date:  2018-12-11

Review 4.  Imaging as a Personalized Biomarker for Prostate Cancer Risk Stratification.

Authors:  Kyle H Gennaro; Kristin K Porter; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Samuel J Galgano; Soroush Rais-Bahrami
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2018-11-30

5.  Multicentre clinical evaluation of the safety and performance of a simple transperineal access system for prostate biopsies for suspected prostate cancer: The CAMbridge PROstate Biopsy DevicE (CamPROBE) study.

Authors:  Vincent J Gnanapragasam; Kelly Leonard; Michal Sut; Cristian Ilie; Jonathan Ord; Jacques Roux; Maria Consuelo Hart Prieto; Anne Warren; Priya Tamer
Journal:  J Clin Urol       Date:  2020-06-12

6.  Modified Predictive Model and Nomogram by Incorporating Prebiopsy Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging With Clinical Indicators for Prostate Biopsy Decision Making.

Authors:  Jin-Feng Pan; Rui Su; Jian-Zhou Cao; Zhen-Ya Zhao; Da-Wei Ren; Sha-Zhou Ye; Rui-da Huang; Zhu-Lei Tao; Cheng-Ling Yu; Jun-Hui Jiang; Qi Ma
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-09-13       Impact factor: 6.244

7.  Follow-up of men with a PI-RADS 4/5 lesion after negative MRI/Ultrasound fusion biopsy.

Authors:  Kira Kornienko; Miriam Reuter; Andreas Maxeiner; Karsten Günzel; Beatrice Kittner; Maximilian Reimann; Sebastian L Hofbauer; Laura E Wiemer; Robin Heckmann; Patrick Asbach; Johann Jakob Wendler; Martin Schostak; Thorsten Schlomm; Frank Friedersdorff; Hannes Cash
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-08-10       Impact factor: 4.996

8.  Comparing Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Version 2 (PI-RADSv2) Category 1 and 2 Groups: Clinical Implication of Negative Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Authors:  Jung Kwon Kim; Hak Jong Lee; Sung Il Hwang; Gheeyoung Choe; Sung Kyu Hong
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2020-03-31       Impact factor: 3.411

9.  The role of MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Andrea Benelli; Chiara Vaccaro; Sonia Guzzo; Carlotta Nedbal; Virginia Varca; Andrea Gregori
Journal:  Ther Adv Urol       Date:  2020-05-18

10.  Serum miRNAs Support the Indication for MRI-Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Biopsy of the Prostate in Patients with Low-PI-RADS Lesions.

Authors:  Bastian Keck; Angelika Borkowetz; Julia Poellmann; Thilo Jansen; Moritz Fischer; Susanne Fuessel; Andreas Kahlmeyer; Manfred Wirth; Johannes Huber; Alexander Cavallaro; Matthias Hammon; Ivan Platzek; Arndt Hartmann; Gustavo Baretton; Frank Kunath; Danijel Sikic; Helge Taubert; Bernd Wullich; Kati Erdmann; Sven Wach
Journal:  Cells       Date:  2021-05-25       Impact factor: 6.600

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.