Eliodoro Faiella1, Domiziana Santucci2, Federico Greco2, Giulia Frauenfelder2, Viola Giacobbe3, Giovanni Muto4, Bruno Beomonte Zobel2, Rosario Francesco Grasso2. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Rome "Campus Bio-medico", Via Alvaro del Portillo, 21-00128, Rome, Italy. e.faiella@unicampus.it. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Rome "Campus Bio-medico", Via Alvaro del Portillo, 21-00128, Rome, Italy. 3. Department of Bio-Engineering, University of Rome "Gemelli", Largo Agostino Gemelli, 8, 00168, Rome, Italy. 4. Department of Urology, University of Rome "Campus Bio-medico", Via Alvaro del Portillo, 21-00128, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of mp-MRI correlating US/mp-MRI fusion-guided biopsy with systematic random US-guided biopsy in prostate cancer diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 137 suspected prostatic abnormalities were identified on mp-MRI (1.5T) in 96 patients and classified according to PI-RADS score v2. All target lesions underwent US/mp-MRI fusion biopsy and prostatic sampling was completed by US-guided systematic random 12-core biopsies. Histological analysis and Gleason score were established for all the samples, both target lesions defined by mp-MRI, and random biopsies. PI-RADS score was correlated with the histological results, divided in three groups (benign tissue, atypia and carcinoma) and with Gleason groups, divided in four categories considering the new Grading system of the ISUP 2014, using t test. Multivariate analysis was used to correlate PI-RADS and Gleason categories to PSA level and abnormalities axial diameter. When the random core biopsies showed carcinoma (mp-MRI false-negatives), PSA value and lesions Gleason median value were compared with those of carcinomas identified by mp-MRI (true-positives), using t test. RESULTS: There was statistically significant difference between PI-RADS score in carcinoma, atypia and benign lesions groups (4.41, 3.61 and 3.24, respectively) and between PI-RADS score in Gleason < 7 group and Gleason > 7 group (4.14 and 4.79, respectively). mp-MRI performance was more accurate for lesions > 15 mm and in patients with PSA > 6 ng/ml. In systematic sampling, 130 (11.25%) mp-MRI false-negative were identified. There was no statistic difference in Gleason median value (7.0 vs 7.06) between this group and the mp-MRI true-positives, but a significant lower PSA median value was demonstrated (7.08 vs 7.53 ng/ml). CONCLUSION: mp-MRI remains the imaging modality of choice to identify PCa lesions. Integrating US-guided random sampling with US/mp-MRI fusion target lesions sampling, 3.49% of false-negative were identified.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of mp-MRI correlating US/mp-MRI fusion-guided biopsy with systematic random US-guided biopsy in prostate cancer diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 137 suspected prostatic abnormalities were identified on mp-MRI (1.5T) in 96 patients and classified according to PI-RADS score v2. All target lesions underwent US/mp-MRI fusion biopsy and prostatic sampling was completed by US-guided systematic random 12-core biopsies. Histological analysis and Gleason score were established for all the samples, both target lesions defined by mp-MRI, and random biopsies. PI-RADS score was correlated with the histological results, divided in three groups (benign tissue, atypia and carcinoma) and with Gleason groups, divided in four categories considering the new Grading system of the ISUP 2014, using t test. Multivariate analysis was used to correlate PI-RADS and Gleason categories to PSA level and abnormalities axial diameter. When the random core biopsies showed carcinoma (mp-MRI false-negatives), PSA value and lesions Gleason median value were compared with those of carcinomas identified by mp-MRI (true-positives), using t test. RESULTS: There was statistically significant difference between PI-RADS score in carcinoma, atypia and benign lesions groups (4.41, 3.61 and 3.24, respectively) and between PI-RADS score in Gleason < 7 group and Gleason > 7 group (4.14 and 4.79, respectively). mp-MRI performance was more accurate for lesions > 15 mm and in patients with PSA > 6 ng/ml. In systematic sampling, 130 (11.25%) mp-MRI false-negative were identified. There was no statistic difference in Gleason median value (7.0 vs 7.06) between this group and the mp-MRI true-positives, but a significant lower PSA median value was demonstrated (7.08 vs 7.53 ng/ml). CONCLUSION: mp-MRI remains the imaging modality of choice to identify PCa lesions. Integrating US-guided random sampling with US/mp-MRI fusion target lesions sampling, 3.49% of false-negative were identified.
Entities:
Keywords:
PI-RADS score; Prostate cancer lesions; Prostate mp-MRI; US random core biopsy; mp-MRI/US fusion biopsy
Authors: Seyed Saeid Dianat; H Ballentine Carter; Edward M Schaeffer; Ulrik M Hamper; Jonathan I Epstein; Katarzyna J Macura Journal: Can J Urol Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 1.344
Authors: Peter A Pinto; Paul H Chung; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Angelo A Baccala; Jochen Kruecker; Compton J Benjamin; Sheng Xu; Pingkun Yan; Samuel Kadoury; Celene Chua; Julia K Locklin; Baris Turkbey; Joanna H Shih; Stacey P Gates; Carey Buckner; Gennady Bratslavsky; W Marston Linehan; Neil D Glossop; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jonathan I Epstein; Lars Egevad; Mahul B Amin; Brett Delahunt; John R Srigley; Peter A Humphrey Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Derya Tilki; Boris Schlenker; Majnu John; Alexander Buchner; Peter Stanislaus; Christian Gratzke; Alexander Karl; Gerald Y Tan; Süleyman Ergün; Ashutosh K Tewari; Christian G Stief; Michael Seitz; Oliver Reich Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2009-10-17 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: A V Taira; G S Merrick; R W Galbreath; H Andreini; W Taubenslag; R Curtis; W M Butler; E Adamovich; K E Wallner Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2009-09-29 Impact factor: 5.554