Mark W Ball1, Ashley E Ross1, Kamyar Ghabili1, Chunwoo Kim1, Changhan Jun1, Doru Petrisor1, Li Pan2, Jonathan I Epstein3, Katarzyna J Macura4, Dan S Stoianovici1, Mohamad E Allaf5. 1. The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 2. Siemens Healthcare, Baltimore, MD. 3. Department of Pathology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 4. Department of Radiology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 5. The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. Electronic address: mallaf@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate safety and feasibility in a first-in-human trial of a direct magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided prostate biopsy using a novel robotic device. METHODS: MrBot is an MRI-safe robotic device constructed entirely with nonconductive, nonmetallic, and nonmagnetic materials and developed by our group. A safety and feasibility clinical trial was designed to assess the safety and feasibility of a direct MRI-guided biopsy with MrBot and to determine its targeting accuracy. Men with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels, prior negative prostate biopsies, and cancer-suspicious regions (CSRs) on MRI were enrolled in the study. Biopsies targeting CSRs, in addition to sextant locations, were performed. RESULTS: Five men underwent biopsy with MrBot. Two men required Foley catheter insertion after the procedure, with no other complications or adverse events. Even though this was not a study designed to detect prostate cancer, biopsies confirmed the presence of a clinically significant cancer in 2 patients. On a total of 30 biopsy sites, the robot achieved an MRI-based targeting accuracy of 2.55 mm and a precision of 1.59 mm normal to the needle, with no trajectory corrections and no unsuccessful attempts to target a site. CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted MRI-guided prostate biopsy appears safe and feasible. This study confirms that a clinically significant prostate cancer (≥5-mm radius, 0.5 cm3) depicted in MRI may be accurately targeted. Direct confirmation of needle placement in the CSR may present an advantage over fusion-based technology and gives more confidence in a negative biopsy result. Additional study is warranted to evaluate the efficacy of this approach.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate safety and feasibility in a first-in-human trial of a direct magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided prostate biopsy using a novel robotic device. METHODS: MrBot is an MRI-safe robotic device constructed entirely with nonconductive, nonmetallic, and nonmagnetic materials and developed by our group. A safety and feasibility clinical trial was designed to assess the safety and feasibility of a direct MRI-guided biopsy with MrBot and to determine its targeting accuracy. Men with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels, prior negative prostate biopsies, and cancer-suspicious regions (CSRs) on MRI were enrolled in the study. Biopsies targeting CSRs, in addition to sextant locations, were performed. RESULTS: Five men underwent biopsy with MrBot. Two men required Foley catheter insertion after the procedure, with no other complications or adverse events. Even though this was not a study designed to detect prostate cancer, biopsies confirmed the presence of a clinically significant cancer in 2 patients. On a total of 30 biopsy sites, the robot achieved an MRI-based targeting accuracy of 2.55 mm and a precision of 1.59 mm normal to the needle, with no trajectory corrections and no unsuccessful attempts to target a site. CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted MRI-guided prostate biopsy appears safe and feasible. This study confirms that a clinically significant prostate cancer (≥5-mm radius, 0.5 cm3) depicted in MRI may be accurately targeted. Direct confirmation of needle placement in the CSR may present an advantage over fusion-based technology and gives more confidence in a negative biopsy result. Additional study is warranted to evaluate the efficacy of this approach.
Authors: Ian M Thompson; Donna Pauler Ankerst; Chen Chi; M Scott Lucia; Phyllis J Goodman; John J Crowley; Howard L Parnes; Charles A Coltman Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-07-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Stacy Loeb; Marc A Bjurlin; Joseph Nicholson; Teuvo L Tammela; David F Penson; H Ballentine Carter; Peter Carroll; Ruth Etzioni Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-01-09 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Dan Stoianovici; Alexandru Patriciu; Doru Petrisor; Dumitru Mazilu; Louis Kavoussi Journal: IEEE ASME Trans Mechatron Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 5.303
Authors: Dan Stoianovici; Danny Song; Doru Petrisor; Daniel Ursu; Dumitru Mazilu; Michael Muntener; Michael Mutener; Michael Schar; Alexandru Patriciu Journal: Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol Date: 2007 Impact factor: 2.442
Authors: Steven J Buskirk; David M Pinkstaff; Steven P Petrou; Michael J Wehle; Gregory A Broderick; Paul R Young; Stephen D Weigand; Peter C O'Brien; Todd C Igel Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Fritz H Schröder; Jonas Hugosson; Monique J Roobol; Teuvo L J Tammela; Marco Zappa; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marcos Lujan; Liisa Määttänen; Hans Lilja; Louis J Denis; Franz Recker; Alvaro Paez; Chris H Bangma; Sigrid Carlsson; Donella Puliti; Arnauld Villers; Xavier Rebillard; Matti Hakama; Ulf-Hakan Stenman; Paula Kujala; Kimmo Taari; Gunnar Aus; Andreas Huber; Theo H van der Kwast; Ron H N van Schaik; Harry J de Koning; Sue M Moss; Anssi Auvinen Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Andreas Reichert; Michael Bock; Simon Reiss; Christiaan G Overduin; Jurgen J Fütterer; Axel Joachim Krafft Journal: MAGMA Date: 2018-09-06 Impact factor: 2.310