Michael G Holmes1, Erik Foss2, Gabby Joseph3, Adam Foye4, Brooke Beckett2, Daria Motamedi3, Jack Youngren4, George V Thomas5, Jiaoti Huang6, Rahul Aggarwal4, Joshi J Alumkal7, Tomasz M Beer7, Eric J Small4, Thomas M Link3. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, 513 Parnassus Avenue, S-261, San Francisco, CA 94143-0628. Electronic address: Michael.Holmes@ucsf.edu. 2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon. 3. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, 513 Parnassus Avenue, S-261, San Francisco, CA 94143-0628. 4. Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, 513 Parnassus Avenue, S-261, San Francisco, CA 94143-0628; UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, 513 Parnassus Avenue, S-261, San Francisco, CA 94143-0628. 5. Department of Pathology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon; OHSU Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon. 6. Department of Pathology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 7. Department of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon; OHSU Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the success rate of CT-guided bone biopsies in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and to investigate associated technical, imaging, and clinical parameters affecting diagnostic yields. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty CT-guided bone biopsy specimens were obtained from 72 men (median age, 68 y; range, 49-89 y) enrolled in a multicenter trial to identify mechanisms of resistance in mCRPC. Successful biopsy was determined by histologic confirmation of tumor cells and successful isolation of RNA for molecular analysis. RESULTS: The overall success rate of CT-guided bone biopsies was 69% (55/80) based on histology and 64% (35/55) based on isolation of molecular material for RNA sequencing. Biopsies performed in lesions with areas of radiolucency had significantly higher diagnostic yields compared with lesions of predominantly dense sclerosis (95% vs 33%; P = .002) and lesions of predominantly subtle sclerosis (95% vs 65%; P = .04). Success rates increased in lesions with density ≤ 475 HU (79% for ≤ 475 HU vs 33% for > 475 HU; P = .001) and in lesions with ill-defined margins (76% for ill-defined margins vs 36% for well-circumscribed margins; P = .005). Alkaline phosphatase was the only clinical parameter to correlate significantly with diagnostic yield (83% for > 110 U/L vs 50% for ≤ 110 U/L; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Image-guided bone tumor biopsies can be successfully used to acquire cellular and molecular material for analyses in patients with osteoblastic prostate cancer metastases. Diagnostic yields are significantly increased in lesions with areas of radiolucency, density ≤ 475 HU, ill-defined margins, and interval growth and in patients with alkaline phosphatase > 110 U/L.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the success rate of CT-guided bone biopsies in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and to investigate associated technical, imaging, and clinical parameters affecting diagnostic yields. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty CT-guided bone biopsy specimens were obtained from 72 men (median age, 68 y; range, 49-89 y) enrolled in a multicenter trial to identify mechanisms of resistance in mCRPC. Successful biopsy was determined by histologic confirmation of tumor cells and successful isolation of RNA for molecular analysis. RESULTS: The overall success rate of CT-guided bone biopsies was 69% (55/80) based on histology and 64% (35/55) based on isolation of molecular material for RNA sequencing. Biopsies performed in lesions with areas of radiolucency had significantly higher diagnostic yields compared with lesions of predominantly dense sclerosis (95% vs 33%; P = .002) and lesions of predominantly subtle sclerosis (95% vs 65%; P = .04). Success rates increased in lesions with density ≤ 475 HU (79% for ≤ 475 HU vs 33% for > 475 HU; P = .001) and in lesions with ill-defined margins (76% for ill-defined margins vs 36% for well-circumscribed margins; P = .005). Alkaline phosphatase was the only clinical parameter to correlate significantly with diagnostic yield (83% for > 110 U/L vs 50% for ≤ 110 U/L; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Image-guided bone tumor biopsies can be successfully used to acquire cellular and molecular material for analyses in patients with osteoblastic prostate cancer metastases. Diagnostic yields are significantly increased in lesions with areas of radiolucency, density ≤ 475 HU, ill-defined margins, and interval growth and in patients with alkaline phosphatase > 110 U/L.
Authors: Rahul Aggarwal; Jiaoti Huang; Joshi J Alumkal; Li Zhang; Felix Y Feng; George V Thomas; Alana S Weinstein; Verena Friedl; Can Zhang; Owen N Witte; Paul Lloyd; Martin Gleave; Christopher P Evans; Jack Youngren; Tomasz M Beer; Matthew Rettig; Christopher K Wong; Lawrence True; Adam Foye; Denise Playdle; Charles J Ryan; Primo Lara; Kim N Chi; Vlado Uzunangelov; Artem Sokolov; Yulia Newton; Himisha Beltran; Francesca Demichelis; Mark A Rubin; Joshua M Stuart; Eric J Small Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-07-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Zahi I Mitri; Swapnil Parmar; Brett Johnson; Annette Kolodzie; Jamie M Keck; Max Morris; Alexander R Guimaraes; Brooke R Beckett; Uma Borate; Charles D Lopez; Kathleen A Kemmer; Joshi J Alumkal; Tomasz M Beer; Christopher L Corless; Gordon B Mills; Joe W Gray; Raymond C Bergan Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2018-12-14 Impact factor: 5.531
Authors: David A Quigley; Ha X Dang; Shuang G Zhao; Paul Lloyd; Rahul Aggarwal; Joshi J Alumkal; Adam Foye; Vishal Kothari; Marc D Perry; Adina M Bailey; Denise Playdle; Travis J Barnard; Li Zhang; Jin Zhang; Jack F Youngren; Marcin P Cieslik; Abhijit Parolia; Tomasz M Beer; George Thomas; Kim N Chi; Martin Gleave; Nathan A Lack; Amina Zoubeidi; Robert E Reiter; Matthew B Rettig; Owen Witte; Charles J Ryan; Lawrence Fong; Won Kim; Terence Friedlander; Jonathan Chou; Haolong Li; Rajdeep Das; Hui Li; Ruhollah Moussavi-Baygi; Hani Goodarzi; Luke A Gilbert; Primo N Lara; Christopher P Evans; Theodore C Goldstein; Joshua M Stuart; Scott A Tomlins; Daniel E Spratt; R Keira Cheetham; Donavan T Cheng; Kyle Farh; Julian S Gehring; Jörg Hakenberg; Arnold Liao; Philip G Febbo; John Shon; Brad Sickler; Serafim Batzoglou; Karen E Knudsen; Housheng H He; Jiaoti Huang; Alexander W Wyatt; Scott M Dehm; Alan Ashworth; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Christopher A Maher; Eric J Small; Felix Y Feng Journal: Cell Date: 2018-07-19 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Joaquin Mateo; Rana McKay; Wassim Abida; Rahul Aggarwal; Joshi Alumkal; Ajjai Alva; Felix Feng; Xin Gao; Julie Graff; Maha Hussain; Fatima Karzai; Bruce Montgomery; William Oh; Vaibhav Patel; Dana Rathkopf; Matthew Rettig; Nikolaus Schultz; Matthew Smith; David Solit; Cora Sternberg; Eliezer Van Allen; David VanderWeele; Jake Vinson; Howard R Soule; Arul Chinnaiyan; Eric Small; Jonathan W Simons; William Dahut; Andrea K Miyahira; Himisha Beltran Journal: Nat Cancer Date: 2020-11-17
Authors: Markus Mayrhofer; Bram De Laere; Tom Whitington; Peter Van Oyen; Christophe Ghysel; Jozef Ampe; Piet Ost; Wim Demey; Lucien Hoekx; Dirk Schrijvers; Barbara Brouwers; Willem Lybaert; Els Everaert; Daan De Maeseneer; Michiel Strijbos; Alain Bols; Karen Fransis; Steffi Oeyen; Pieter-Jan van Dam; Gert Van den Eynden; Annemie Rutten; Markus Aly; Tobias Nordström; Steven Van Laere; Mattias Rantalainen; Prabhakar Rajan; Lars Egevad; Anders Ullén; Jeffrey Yachnin; Luc Dirix; Henrik Grönberg; Johan Lindberg Journal: Genome Med Date: 2018-11-21 Impact factor: 11.117