Literature DB >> 28728993

Value of Tracking Biopsy in Men Undergoing Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer.

Edward Chang1, Tonye A Jones1, Shyam Natarajan1, Devi Sharma1, Demetrios Simopoulos1, Daniel J Margolis2, Jiaoti Huang3, Frederick J Dorey1, Leonard S Marks4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We compared the upgrading rate obtained by resampling precise spots of prostate cancer (tracking biopsy) vs conventional systematic resampling during followup of men on active surveillance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2009 to 2017 in 352 men prostate cancer was Gleason 3 + 3 in 268 and Gleason 3 + 4 in 84 at initial magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy. These men subsequently underwent a second fusion biopsy. At the first biopsy session all men underwent 12-core systematic biopsies and, when magnetic resonance imaging visible lesions were present, targeted biopsies. All cancerous sites were recorded electronically. During active surveillance at a second fusion biopsy session 6 to 18 months later tracking and systematic nontracking samples were obtained. The primary outcome measure was an increase in Gleason score (upgrading) at followup sampling, which was stratified by biopsy method.
RESULTS: Overall 91 of the 352 men (25.9%) experienced upgrading at the second biopsy during a median 11-month interval. The upgrade rate in the Gleason 3 + 3 and 3 + 4 groups was 26.9% and 22.6%, respectively. The mean number of cores taken at second biopsy was 12.2 ± 3.3 in men with upgrading and 12.4 ± 4.1 in those who remained stable (p not significant). Men with grade 0 to 4 magnetic resonance imaging targets were all upgraded at approximately the same rate of 20% to 30% (p not significant). However, 58.8% of the men with grade 5 magnetic resonance imaging targets were upgraded. Of the 91 upgrades 48 (53%) were detected only by tracking.
CONCLUSIONS: The tracking function of magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy warrants further study. When specific sites are resampled in men undergoing active surveillance of prostate cancer, upgrading is detected more often than by nontracking biopsy.
Copyright © 2018 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biopsy; magnetic resonance imaging; neoplasm grading; prostatic neoplasms; ultrasonography

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28728993      PMCID: PMC5760302          DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.07.038

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  20 in total

1.  Clinical application of a 3D ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy system.

Authors:  Shyam Natarajan; Leonard S Marks; Daniel J A Margolis; Jiaoti Huang; Maria Luz Macairan; Patricia Lieu; Aaron Fenster
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2011 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.498

2.  Molecular Profiling to Determine Clonality of Serial Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion Biopsies from Men on Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Ganesh S Palapattu; Simpa S Salami; Andi K Cani; Daniel H Hovelson; Lorena Lazo de la Vega; Kelly R Vandenberg; Jarred V Bratley; Chia-Jen Liu; Lakshmi P Kunju; Jeffery S Montgomery; Todd M Morgan; Shyam Natarajan; Jiaoti Huang; Scott A Tomlins; Leonard S Marks
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2016-10-07       Impact factor: 12.531

3.  Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Tosoian; Bruce J Trock; Patricia Landis; Zhaoyong Feng; Jonathan I Epstein; Alan W Partin; Patrick C Walsh; H Ballentine Carter
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-04-04       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Risk prediction tool for grade re-classification in men with favourable-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance.

Authors:  Mufaddal M Mamawala; Karthik Rao; Patricia Landis; Jonathan I Epstein; Bruce J Trock; Jeffrey J Tosoian; Kenneth J Pienta; H Ballentine Carter
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2016-08-29       Impact factor: 5.588

5.  Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: The role of systematic and targeted biopsies.

Authors:  Christopher P Filson; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J A Margolis; Jiaoti Huang; Patricia Lieu; Frederick J Dorey; Robert E Reiter; Leonard S Marks
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Fusion Biopsy to Detect Progression in Patients with Existing Lesions on Active Surveillance for Low and Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Thomas P Frye; Arvin K George; Amichai Kilchevsky; Mahir Maruf; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Michael Kongnyuy; Akhil Muthigi; Hui Han; Howard L Parnes; Maria Merino; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Brad Wood; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-09-06       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 7.  Use of mpMRI in active surveillance for localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Kristen R Scarpato; Daniel A Barocas
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2016-03-29       Impact factor: 3.498

8.  Prostate Cancer Diagnosis on Repeat Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy of Benign Lesions: Recommendations for Repeat Sampling.

Authors:  Raju Chelluri; Amichai Kilchevsky; Arvin K George; Abhinav Sidana; Thomas P Frye; Daniel Su; Michele Fascelli; Richard Ho; Steven F Abboud; Baris Turkbey; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-02-13       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Serial Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer: Incremental Value.

Authors:  Ely R Felker; Jason Wu; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J Margolis; Steven S Raman; Jiaoti Huang; Fred Dorey; Leonard S Marks
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2015-12-07       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Geometric evaluation of systematic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Misop Han; Doyoung Chang; Chunwoo Kim; Brian J Lee; Yihe Zuo; Hyung-Joo Kim; Doru Petrisor; Bruce Trock; Alan W Partin; Ronald Rodriguez; H Ballentine Carter; Mohamad Allaf; Jongwon Kim; Dan Stoianovici
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2012-10-22       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  6 in total

1.  Comparison of Targeted vs Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Men Who Are Biopsy Naive: The Prospective Assessment of Image Registration in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer (PAIREDCAP) Study.

Authors:  Fuad F Elkhoury; Ely R Felker; Lorna Kwan; Anthony E Sisk; Merdie Delfin; Shyam Natarajan; Leonard S Marks
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2019-09-01       Impact factor: 16.681

Review 2.  MR-guided biopsy and focal therapy: new options for prostate cancer management.

Authors:  Fuad F Elkhoury; Demetrios N Simopoulos; Leonard S Marks
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 2.808

3.  Possible clinical implications of prostate capsule thickness and glandular epithelial cell density in benign prostate hyperplasia.

Authors:  Katherine G Holder; Bernardo Galvan; Andrew S Knight; Freedom Ha; Reagan Collins; Preston E Weaver; Luis Brandi; Werner T de Riese
Journal:  Investig Clin Urol       Date:  2021-05-31

Review 4.  Targeted Prostate Biopsy in the Era of Active Surveillance.

Authors:  Fuad F Elkhoury; Demetrios N Simopoulos; Leonard S Marks
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2017-09-27       Impact factor: 2.633

5.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Confirmatory Biopsy for Initiating Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Rajiv Jayadevan; Ely R Felker; Lorna Kwan; Danielle E Barsa; Haoyue Zhang; Anthony E Sisk; Merdie Delfin; Leonard S Marks
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2019-09-04

Review 6.  The use of prostate MR for targeting prostate biopsies.

Authors:  R Phelps Kelley; Ronald J Zagoria; Hao G Nguyen; Katsuto Shinohara; Antonio C Westphalen
Journal:  BJR Open       Date:  2019-06-19
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.