Literature DB >> 29024425

Multicentre evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging supported transperineal prostate biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer.

Nienke L Hansen1, Tristan Barrett1,2, Claudia Kesch3, Lana Pepdjonovic4, David Bonekamp5, Richard O'Sullivan6, Florian Distler3, Anne Warren1,7, Christina Samel8, Boris Hadaschik3, Jeremy Grummet4, Christof Kastner1,9.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To analyse the detection rates of primary magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-fusion transperineal prostate biopsy using combined targeted and systematic core distribution in three tertiary referral centres. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicentre, prospective outcome study, 807 consecutive biopsy-naïve patients underwent MRI-guided transperineal prostate biopsy, as the first diagnostic intervention, between 10/2012 and 05/2016. MRI was reported following the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) criteria. In all, 236 patients had 18-24 systematic transperineal biopsies only, and 571 patients underwent additional targeted biopsies either by MRI-fusion or cognitive targeting if PI-RADS ≥3 lesions were present. Detection rates for any and Gleason score 7-10 cancer in targeted and overall biopsy were calculated and predictive values were calculated for different PI-RADS and PSA density (PSAD) groups.
RESULTS: Cancer was detected in 68% of the patients (546/807) and Gleason score 7-10 cancer in 49% (392/807). The negative predictive value of 236 PI-RADS 1-2 MRI in combination with PSAD of <0.1 ng/mL/mL for Gleason score 7-10 was 0.91 (95% confidence interval ± 0.07, 8% of study population). In 418 patients with PI-RADS 4-5 lesions using targeted plus systematic biopsies, the cancer detection rate of Gleason score 7-10 was significantly higher at 71% vs 59% and 61% with either approach alone (P < 0.001). For 153 PI-RADS 3 lesions, the detection rate was 31% with no significant difference to systematic biopsies with 27% (P > 0.05). Limitations include variability of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) reading and Gleason grading.
CONCLUSION: MRI-based transperineal biopsy performed at high-volume tertiary care centres with a significant experience of prostate mpMRI and image-guided targeted biopsies yielded high detection rates of Gleason score 7-10 cancer. Prostate biopsies may not be needed for men with low PSAD and an unsuspicious MRI. In patients with high probability lesions, combined targeted and systematic biopsies are recommended.
© 2017 The Authors BJU International © 2017 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  #PCSM, #ProstateCancer; MRI-TRUS fusion; cognitive fusion; magnetic resonance imaging; prostate biopsy; transperineal

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29024425     DOI: 10.1111/bju.14049

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  33 in total

1.  Multiparametric MRI Features and Pathologic Outcome of Wedge-Shaped Lesions in the Peripheral Zone on T2-Weighted Images of the Prostate.

Authors:  Aritrick Chatterjee; Sevil Tokdemir; Alexander J Gallan; Ambereen Yousuf; Tatjana Antic; Gregory S Karczmar; Aytekin Oto
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2018-11-07       Impact factor: 3.959

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

Review 3.  Arguments against using an abbreviated or biparametric prostate MRI protocol.

Authors:  Felipe B Franco; Fiona M Fennessy
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-12

Review 4.  Role of pre-biopsy multiparametric MRI in prostate cancer diagnosis: Evidence from the literature.

Authors:  David Ka-Wai Leung; Peter Ka-Fung Chiu; Chi-Fai Ng; Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2020-10-01

Review 5.  PI-RADS Steering Committee: The PI-RADS Multiparametric MRI and MRI-directed Biopsy Pathway.

Authors:  Anwar R Padhani; Jelle Barentsz; Geert Villeirs; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Daniel J Margolis; Baris Turkbey; Harriet C Thoeny; François Cornud; Masoom A Haider; Katarzyna J Macura; Clare M Tempany; Sadhna Verma; Jeffrey C Weinreb
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer.

Authors:  Frank-Jan H Drost; Daniël F Osses; Daan Nieboer; Ewout W Steyerberg; Chris H Bangma; Monique J Roobol; Ivo G Schoots
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-04-25

Review 7.  Review article: MRI-targeted biopsies for prostate cancer diagnosis and management.

Authors:  M Noureldin; D Eldred-Evans; C C Khoo; M Winkler; H Sokhi; H Tam; H U Ahmed
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2020-04-06       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  Multicenter analysis of clinical and MRI characteristics associated with detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in PI-RADS (v2.0) category 3 lesions.

Authors:  Bashir Al Hussein Al Awamlh; Leonard S Marks; Geoffrey A Sonn; Shyam Natarajan; Richard E Fan; Michael D Gross; Elizabeth Mauer; Samprit Banerjee; Stefanie Hectors; Sigrid Carlsson; Daniel J Margolis; Jim C Hu
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2020-04-17       Impact factor: 3.498

9.  Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Steering Committee: PI-RADS v2 Status Update and Future Directions.

Authors:  Anwar R Padhani; Jeffrey Weinreb; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Geert Villeirs; Baris Turkbey; Jelle Barentsz
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2018-06-13       Impact factor: 20.096

10.  Comparison of prostate cancer detection rates between magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy and transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System in patients with PSA ≥4 ng/mL: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kai Zhu; Zhiqiang Qin; Jianxin Xue; Chenkui Miao; Ye Tian; Shouyong Liu; Shenhao Zhu; Qi Gu; Chao Hou; Aiming Xu; Jie Yang; Zengjun Wang
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2019-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.