Anna J Yaxley1, John W Yaxley2,3,4, Isaac A Thangasamy4, Emma Ballard5, Morgan R Pokorny2. 1. Prince Charles Hospital, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld, Australia. 2. Wesley Hospital, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld, Australia. 3. Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld, Australia. 4. School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld, Australia. 5. QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the detection rates of prostate cancer (PCa) in men with Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3-5 abnormalities on 3-Tesla multiparametric (mp) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using in-bore MRI-guided biopsy compared with cognitively directed transperineal (cTP) biopsy and transrectal ultrasonography (cTRUS) biopsy. METHODS: This was a retrospective single-centre study of consecutive men attending the private practice clinic of an experienced urologist performing MRI-guided biopsy and an experienced urologist performing cTP and cTRUS biopsy techniques for PI-RADS 3-5 lesions identified on 3-Tesla mpMRI. RESULTS: There were 595 target mpMRI lesions from 482 men with PI-RADS 3-5 regions of interest during 483 episodes of biopsy. The abnormal mpMRI target lesion was biopsied using the MRI-guided method for 298 biopsies, the cTP method for 248 biopsies and the cTRUS method for 49 biopsies. There were no significant differences in PCa detection among the three biopsy methods in PI-RADS 3 (48.9%, 40.0% and 44.4%, respectively), PI-RADS 4 (73.2%, 81.0% and 85.0%, respectively) or PI-RADS 5 (95.2, 92.0% and 95.0%, respectively) lesions, and there was no significant difference in detection of significant PCa among the biopsy methods in PI-RADS 3 (42.2%, 30.0% and 33.3%, respectively), PI-RADS 4 (66.8%, 66.0% and 80.0%, respectively) or PI-RADS 5 (90.5%, 89.8% and 90.0%, respectively) lesions. There were also no differences in PCa or significant PCa detection based on lesion location or size among the methods. CONCLUSION: We found no significant difference in the ability to detect PCa or significant PCa using targeted MRI-guided, cTP or cTRUS biopsy methods. Identification of an abnormal area on mpMRI appears to be more important in increasing the detection of PCa than the technique used to biopsy an MRI abnormality.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the detection rates of prostate cancer (PCa) in men with Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3-5 abnormalities on 3-Tesla multiparametric (mp) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using in-bore MRI-guided biopsy compared with cognitively directed transperineal (cTP) biopsy and transrectal ultrasonography (cTRUS) biopsy. METHODS: This was a retrospective single-centre study of consecutive men attending the private practice clinic of an experienced urologist performing MRI-guided biopsy and an experienced urologist performing cTP and cTRUS biopsy techniques for PI-RADS 3-5 lesions identified on 3-Tesla mpMRI. RESULTS: There were 595 target mpMRI lesions from 482 men with PI-RADS 3-5 regions of interest during 483 episodes of biopsy. The abnormal mpMRI target lesion was biopsied using the MRI-guided method for 298 biopsies, the cTP method for 248 biopsies and the cTRUS method for 49 biopsies. There were no significant differences in PCa detection among the three biopsy methods in PI-RADS 3 (48.9%, 40.0% and 44.4%, respectively), PI-RADS 4 (73.2%, 81.0% and 85.0%, respectively) or PI-RADS 5 (95.2, 92.0% and 95.0%, respectively) lesions, and there was no significant difference in detection of significant PCa among the biopsy methods in PI-RADS 3 (42.2%, 30.0% and 33.3%, respectively), PI-RADS 4 (66.8%, 66.0% and 80.0%, respectively) or PI-RADS 5 (90.5%, 89.8% and 90.0%, respectively) lesions. There were also no differences in PCa or significant PCa detection based on lesion location or size among the methods. CONCLUSION: We found no significant difference in the ability to detect PCa or significant PCa using targeted MRI-guided, cTP or cTRUS biopsy methods. Identification of an abnormal area on mpMRI appears to be more important in increasing the detection of PCa than the technique used to biopsy an MRI abnormality.
Authors: Matthew D Greer; Joanna H Shih; Nathan Lay; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo Bittencourt; Samuel Borofsky; Ismail Kabakus; Yan Mee Law; Jamie Marko; Haytham Shebel; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Ronald M Summers; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2019-03-27 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Peter Donato; Matthew J Roberts; Andrew Morton; Samuel Kyle; Geoff Coughlin; Rachel Esler; Nigel Dunglison; Robert A Gardiner; John Yaxley Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-09-19 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: A van Luijtelaar; B M Greenwood; H U Ahmed; A B Barqawi; E Barret; J G R Bomers; M A Brausi; P L Choyke; M R Cooperberg; S Eggener; J F Feller; F Frauscher; A K George; R G Hindley; S F M Jenniskens; L Klotz; G Kovacs; U Lindner; S Loeb; D J Margolis; L S Marks; S May; T D Mcclure; R Montironi; S G Nour; A Oto; T J Polascik; A R Rastinehad; T M De Reyke; J S Reijnen; J J M C H de la Rosette; J P M Sedelaar; D S Sperling; E M Walser; J F Ward; A Villers; S Ghai; J J Fütterer Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-01-22 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Jia Ying Isaac Tay; Ken Chow; Dominic J Gavin; Evie Mertens; Nicholas Howard; Benjamin Thomas; Philip Dundee; Justin Peters; Paul Simkin; Sevastjan Kranz; Moira Finlay; Stefan Heinze; Brian Kelly; Anthony Costello; Niall Corcoran Journal: BJUI Compass Date: 2021-06-04
Authors: Jonathan Kam; Yuigi Yuminaga; Raymond Kim; Kushlan Aluwihare; Finlay Macneil; Rupert Ouyang; Stephen Ruthven; Mark Louie-Johnsun Journal: Prostate Int Date: 2017-11-02