Literature DB >> 28687911

Incremental diagnostic value of targeted biopsy using mpMRI-TRUS fusion versus 14-fragments prostatic biopsy: a prospective controlled study.

Guilherme C Mariotti1, Priscila M Falsarella2,3, Rodrigo G Garcia1, Marcos R G Queiroz1, Gustavo C Lemos4, Ronaldo H Baroni5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the incremental diagnostic value of targeted biopsy using real-time multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound (mpMRI-TRUS) fusion to conventional 14-cores biopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Uni-institutional, institutional review board (IRB) approved prospective blinded study comparing TRUS-guided random and targeted biopsy using mpMRI-TRUS fusion, in 100 consecutive men. We included men with clinical-laboratorial suspicious for prostate cancer and Likert score ≥ 3 mp-MRI. Patients previously diagnosed with prostate cancer were excluded. All patients were submitted to 14-cores TRUS-guided biopsy (mpMRI data operator-blinded), followed by targeted biopsy using mpMRI-TRUS fusion.
RESULTS: There was an overall increase in cancer detection rate, from 56% with random technique to 62% combining targeted biopsy using mpMRI-TRUS fusion; incremental diagnosis was even more relevant for clinically significant lesions (Gleason ≥ 7), diagnosing 10% more clinically significant lesions with fusion biopsy technique. Diagnosis upgrade occurred in 5 patients that would have negative results in random biopsies and had clinically significant tumours with the combined technique, and in 5 patients who had the diagnosis of significant tumours after fusion biopsy and clinically insignificant tumours in random biopsies(p=0.0010).
CONCLUSIONS: Targeted biopsy using mpMRI-TRUS fusion has incremental diagnostic value in comparison to conventional random biopsy, better detecting clinically significant prostate cancers. KEY POINTS: • mpMRI-TRUS targeted biopsy increases overall cancer detection rate, but not statistically significant. • mpMRI-TRUS targeted biopsy actually improves the diagnosis of clinically significant PCa. • There was no evidence to acquire the mpMRI-TRUS fusion cores alone.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods; Needle biopsy; Prospective Studies; Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnosis; Ultrasonography, Interventional

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28687911     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-4939-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  19 in total

Review 1.  The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; William C Allsbrook; Mahul B Amin; Lars L Egevad
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 6.394

2.  Validation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in a cohort of repeat biopsy patients.

Authors:  Daniel Portalez; Pierre Mozer; François Cornud; Raphaëlle Renard-Penna; Vincent Misrai; Matthieu Thoulouzan; Bernard Malavaud
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2012-06-27       Impact factor: 20.096

3.  Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Authors:  M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Arvin K George; Jason Rothwax; Nabeel Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Dima Raskolnikov; Howard L Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Richard M Simon; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-01-27       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Improved prostate cancer detection with anterior apical prostate biopsies.

Authors:  Jonathan L Wright; William J Ellis
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.498

5.  Three-Tesla magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy in men with increased prostate-specific antigen and repeated, negative, random, systematic, transrectal ultrasound biopsies: detection of clinically significant prostate cancers.

Authors:  Caroline M A Hoeks; Martijn G Schouten; Joyce G R Bomers; Stefan P Hoogendoorn; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Thomas Hambrock; Henk Vergunst; J P Michiel Sedelaar; Jurgen J Fütterer; Jelle O Barentsz
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 20.096

6.  Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion device.

Authors:  Geoffrey A Sonn; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J A Margolis; Malu MacAiran; Patricia Lieu; Jiaoti Huang; Frederick J Dorey; Leonard S Marks
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2012-11-14       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer.

Authors:  J I Epstein; P C Walsh; M Carmichael; C B Brendler
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-02-02       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  The worldwide epidemiology of prostate cancer: perspectives from autopsy studies.

Authors:  Gabriel P Haas; Nicolas Delongchamps; Otis W Brawley; Ching Y Wang; Gustavo de la Roza
Journal:  Can J Urol       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.344

9.  Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Laurence Klotz; Liying Zhang; Adam Lam; Robert Nam; Alexandre Mamedov; Andrew Loblaw
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-11-16       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate.

Authors:  K K Hodge; J E McNeal; M K Terris; T A Stamey
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1989-07       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Inherited risk assessment and its clinical utility for predicting prostate cancer from diagnostic prostate biopsies.

Authors:  Jianfeng Xu; W Kyle Resurreccion; Zhuqing Shi; Jun Wei; Chi-Hsiung Wang; S Lilly Zheng; Peter J Hulick; Ashley E Ross; Christian P Pavlovich; Brian T Helfand; William B Isaacs
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2022-03-28       Impact factor: 5.455

2.  MRI/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Targeted Biopsy and Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Systematic Biopsy for Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jianfeng Xie; Chunchun Jin; Mengmeng Liu; Kun Sun; Zhanqiang Jin; Zhimin Ding; Xuehao Gong
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-05-23       Impact factor: 5.738

3.  Feasibility study of MR-guided transgluteal targeted in-bore biopsy for suspicious lesions of the prostate at 3 Tesla using a freehand approach.

Authors:  Frank Fischbach; Lukas Wien; Sascha Krueger; Bernhard Schnackenburg; Daniel Baumunk; Björn Friebe; Martin Schostak; Jens Ricke; Katharina Fischbach
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-01-17       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  MRI-targeted prostate biopsy: the next step forward!

Authors:  Emanuel Darius Cata; Iulia Andras; Teodora Telecan; Attila Tamas-Szora; Radu-Tudor Coman; Dan-Vasile Stanca; Ioan Coman; Nicolae Crisan
Journal:  Med Pharm Rep       Date:  2021-04-29

Review 5.  The current role of prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging.

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

6.  Endorectal power Doppler/grayscale ultrasound-guided biopsies vs. multiparametric MRI/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsies in males with high risk of prostate cancer: A prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Zhizhong He; Zhifan Yuan; Limei Liang; Xinx In Xie; Jianjun Yuan; Wenxu He; Junjun Chen; Yongpei Kuang
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2019-10-31       Impact factor: 2.447

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.