Literature DB >> 28762373

Changes in prostate cancer detection rate of MRI-TRUS fusion vs systematic biopsy over time: evidence of a learning curve.

B Calio1, A Sidana1, D Sugano1, S Gaur2, A Jain1, M Maruf1, S Xu3, P Yan3, J Kruecker3, M Merino4, P Choyke2, B Turkbey2, B Wood3, P Pinto1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To determine the effect of urologist and radiologist learning curves and changes in MRI-TRUS fusion platform during 9 years of NCI's experience with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)/TRUS fusion biopsy.
METHODS: A prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing mpMRI followed by fusion biopsy (Fbx) and systematic biopsy (Sbx) from 2007 to 2016 was reviewed. The patients were stratified based on the timing of first biopsy. Cohort 1 (7/2007-12/2010) accounted for learning curve. Cohort 2 (1/2011-5/2013) and cohort 3 (5/2013-4/2016) included patients biopsied prior to and after debut of a new software platform, respectively. Clinically significant (CS) disease was defined as Gleason 7 (3+4) or higher. McNemar's test compared cancer detection rates (CDRs) of Sbx and Fbx between time periods.
RESULTS: 1528 patients were included in the study with 230, 537 and 761 patients included in three respective cohorts. Median age (interquartile range) was 61.0 (±9.0), 62.0 (±7.3), and 64.0 (±11.0) years in three cohorts, respectively (P<0.001). Fbx and Sbx had comparable CS CDR in cohort 1 (24.8 vs 22.2%, P=0.377). Fbx detected significantly more CS disease compared to Sbx in the following two periods (cohort 2: 31.5 vs 25.0%, P=0.001; cohort 3: 36.4 vs 30.3%, P<0.001) and detected significantly less low risk disease in the same period (cohort 2: 14.5 vs 19.6%, P<0.001; cohort 3: 12.6 vs 16.7%, P<0.001). Even after multivariate adjustment with age, PSA, race, clinical stage and MRI suspicion score, Fbx CS cancer detection increased in successive cohorts (cohort 2: OR 2.23, P=0.043; cohort 3: OR 2.92, P=0.007).
CONCLUSIONS: In the past 9 years, there has been significant improvement in the accuracy of Fbx. Our results show that after an early learning period, Fbx detected higher rates of CS cancer and lower rates of clinically insignificant cancer than Sbx. Software advances allowed for even greater detection of CS disease.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28762373      PMCID: PMC8170829          DOI: 10.1038/pcan.2017.34

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis        ISSN: 1365-7852            Impact factor:   5.554


  33 in total

1.  The 'learning curve' in surgery: what is it, how do we measure it and can we influence it?

Authors:  K Subramonian; G Muir
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 5.588

2.  Highlights from the history of mammography.

Authors:  R H Gold; L W Bassett; B E Widoff
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 5.333

3.  The significance of anterior prostate lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in African-American men.

Authors:  Michael Kongnyuy; Abhinav Sidana; Arvin K George; Akhil Muthigi; Amogh Iyer; Michele Fascelli; Meet Kadakia; Thomas P Frye; Richard Ho; Francesca Mertan; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Daniel Su; Maria J Merino; Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2016-02-20       Impact factor: 3.498

4.  Easy way to learn standardization : direct and indirect methods.

Authors:  N N Naing
Journal:  Malays J Med Sci       Date:  2000-01

5.  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

6.  Experience improves staging accuracy of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: what is the learning curve?

Authors:  Kalyan C Latchamsetty; Lester S Borden; Christopher R Porter; Marc Lacrampe; Matthew Vaughan; Eugene Lin; Neal Conti; Jonathan L Wright; John M Corman
Journal:  Can J Urol       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 1.344

7.  Continued improvement of perioperative, pathological and continence outcomes during 700 robot-assisted radical prostatectomies.

Authors:  Kevin C Zorn; Mark A Wille; Alan E Thong; Mark H Katz; Sergey A Shikanov; Aria Razmaria; Ofer N Gofrit; Gregory P Zagaja; Arieh L Shalhav
Journal:  Can J Urol       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 1.344

8.  Impact of the US Preventive Services Task Force Grade D Recommendation: Assessment of Evaluations for Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen and Prostate Biopsies in a Large Urology Group Practice Following Statement Revision.

Authors:  Kathleen F McGinley; Gregory C McMahon; Gordon A Brown
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2015

9.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012.

Authors:  Jelle O Barentsz; Jonathan Richenberg; Richard Clements; Peter Choyke; Sadhna Verma; Geert Villeirs; Olivier Rouviere; Vibeke Logager; Jurgen J Fütterer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-02-10       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 10.  Multiparametric MRI and targeted prostate biopsy: Improvements in cancer detection, localization, and risk assessment.

Authors:  Marc A Bjurlin; Neil Mendhiratta; James S Wysock; Samir S Taneja
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2016-01-25
View more
  16 in total

Review 1.  Multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis: current status and future directions.

Authors:  Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Samir S Taneja; Geert Villeirs; Inderbir S Gill; Clare Allen; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore; Veeru Kasivisvanathan
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2019-07-17       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 2.  Techniques and Outcomes of MRI-TRUS Fusion Prostate Biopsy.

Authors:  Masatomo Kaneko; Dordaneh Sugano; Amir H Lebastchi; Vinay Duddalwar; Jamal Nabhani; Christopher Haiman; Inderbir S Gill; Giovanni E Cacciamani; Andre Luis Abreu
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2021-03-22       Impact factor: 3.092

3.  Association of training level and outcome of software-based image fusion-guided targeted prostate biopsies.

Authors:  Niklas Westhoff; Henning Haumann; Maximilian Christian Kriegmair; Jost von Hardenberg; Johannes Budjan; Stefan Porubsky; Maurice Stephan Michel; Patrick Honeck; Manuel Ritter
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-12-17       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Comparison of Elastic and Rigid Registration during Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Prostate Biopsy: A Multi-Operator Phantom Study.

Authors:  Graham R Hale; Marcin Czarniecki; Alexis Cheng; Jonathan B Bloom; Reza Seifabadi; Samuel A Gold; Kareem N Rayn; Vikram K Sabarwal; Sherif Mehralivand; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Brad Wood; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2018-06-22       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 5.  Follow-up of negative MRI-targeted prostate biopsies: when are we missing cancer?

Authors:  Samuel A Gold; Graham R Hale; Jonathan B Bloom; Clayton P Smith; Kareem N Rayn; Vladimir Valera; Bradford J Wood; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-05-21       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Risk of Upgrading from Prostate Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy Pathology-Does Saturation Biopsy of Index Lesion during Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy Help?

Authors:  Brian P Calio; Abhinav Sidana; Dordaneh Sugano; Sonia Gaur; Mahir Maruf; Amit L Jain; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2018-01-20       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 7.  "Super-active surveillance": MRI ultrasound fusion biopsy and ablation for less invasive management of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Jonathan B Bloom; Samuel A Gold; Graham R Hale; Kareem N Rayn; Vikram K Sabarwal; Ivane Bakhutashvili; Vladimir Valera; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto; Bradford J Wood
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2018-04

8.  Learning deep similarity metric for 3D MR-TRUS image registration.

Authors:  Grant Haskins; Jochen Kruecker; Uwe Kruger; Sheng Xu; Peter A Pinto; Brad J Wood; Pingkun Yan
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2018-10-31       Impact factor: 2.924

9.  Analyzing the learning curves of a novice and an experienced urologist for transrectal magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Emanuel Darius Cata; Charles Van Praet; Iulia Andras; Pierre Kadula; Razvan Ognean; Maximilian Buzoianu; Daniel Leucuta; Cosmin Caraiani; Attila Tamas-Szora; Karel Decaestecker; Ioan Coman; Nicolae Crisan
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-05

10.  Factors Influencing Variability in the Performance of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review.

Authors:  Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Gianluca Giannarini; Caroline M Moore; Anwar R Padhani; Valeria Panebianco; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Georg Salomon; Baris Turkbey; Geert Villeirs; Jelle O Barentsz
Journal:  Eur Urol Oncol       Date:  2020-03-17
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.