Kareem K Elfatairy1,2,3, Christopher P Filson4,5,6, Martin G Sanda4,5,6, Adeboye O Osunkoya4,6,7,8, Rachel L Geller7, Sherif G Nour1,2,6. 1. 1 Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine , Atlanta, GA , United States. 2. 2 Interventional MRI Program,Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine , Atlanta, GA , United States. 3. 3 Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University , Ismailia , Egypt. 4. 4 Department of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine , Atlanta, GA , United States. 5. 5 Department of Urology, Veterans Affairs Medical Center , Atlanta, GA , United States. 6. 6 Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University , Atlanta, GA , United States. 7. 7 Department of Pathology, Emory University School of Medicine , Atlanta, GA United States. 8. 8 Department of Pathology, Veterans Affairs Medical Center , Atlanta, GA , United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the test-retest reliability of repeated in-bore MRI-guided prostate biopsy (MRGB). METHODS: 19 lesions in 7 patients who had consecutive MRGBs were retrospectively analysed. Five patients had 2 consecutive MRGBs and two patients had 3 consecutive MRGBs. Both multiparametric MRI and MRGBs were performed using a 3T MRI scanner. Pathology results were categorized into benign, suspicious and malignant. Consistency between first and subsequent biopsy results were analysed as well as the negative predictive value (NPV) for prostate cancer. RESULTS: 15 lesions (≈79%) had matching second biopsy and 4 (21%) had non-matching second biopsy. Lesions with both Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System(PIRADS) categories 1 and 4 were all benign and had matching pathology results. Lesions with non-matching results had PIRADS categories 2, 3 and 5. NPV for prostate cancer in first biopsy was 87.5%. Overall agreement was 78.9% and overall disagreement was 21.1%.κ = 0.55 denoting moderate agreement (p = 0.002). 10/19 lesions had a third biopsy session. 9/10 (90%) had matching pathology results across the three biopsy sessions and all matching lesions were benign. CONCLUSION: In-bore MRI-guided prostate biopsy may have a better reliability for repeat biopsies compared to TRUS biopsy. Final conclusion awaits a prospective analysis on a larger cohort of patients. Advances in knowledge: This pilot study showed that repeated prostate in-bore MRI-guided prostate biopsy may have better reliability compared to TRUS biopsy with a suggested high NPV.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the test-retest reliability of repeated in-bore MRI-guided prostate biopsy (MRGB). METHODS: 19 lesions in 7 patients who had consecutive MRGBs were retrospectively analysed. Five patients had 2 consecutive MRGBs and two patients had 3 consecutive MRGBs. Both multiparametric MRI and MRGBs were performed using a 3T MRI scanner. Pathology results were categorized into benign, suspicious and malignant. Consistency between first and subsequent biopsy results were analysed as well as the negative predictive value (NPV) for prostate cancer. RESULTS: 15 lesions (≈79%) had matching second biopsy and 4 (21%) had non-matching second biopsy. Lesions with both Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System(PIRADS) categories 1 and 4 were all benign and had matching pathology results. Lesions with non-matching results had PIRADS categories 2, 3 and 5. NPV for prostate cancer in first biopsy was 87.5%. Overall agreement was 78.9% and overall disagreement was 21.1%.κ = 0.55 denoting moderate agreement (p = 0.002). 10/19 lesions had a third biopsy session. 9/10 (90%) had matching pathology results across the three biopsy sessions and all matching lesions were benign. CONCLUSION: In-bore MRI-guided prostate biopsy may have a better reliability for repeat biopsies compared to TRUS biopsy. Final conclusion awaits a prospective analysis on a larger cohort of patients. Advances in knowledge: This pilot study showed that repeated prostate in-bore MRI-guided prostate biopsy may have better reliability compared to TRUS biopsy with a suggested high NPV.
Authors: Sima P Porten; Jared M Whitson; Janet E Cowan; Nannette Perez; Katsuto Shinohara; Peter R Carroll Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-09-25 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Hannes Cash; Karsten Günzel; Andreas Maxeiner; Carsten Stephan; Thomas Fischer; Tahir Durmus; Kurt Miller; Patrick Asbach; Matthias Haas; Carsten Kempkensteffen Journal: BJU Int Date: 2015-10-20 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Scott E Eggener; Alex Mueller; Ryan K Berglund; Raj Ayyathurai; Cindy Soloway; Mark S Soloway; Robert Abouassaly; Eric A Klein; Steven J Jones; Chris Zappavigna; Larry Goldenberg; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham; Bertrand Guillonneau Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-02-23 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Thomas Hambrock; Diederik M Somford; Caroline Hoeks; Stefan A W Bouwense; Henkjan Huisman; Derya Yakar; Inge M van Oort; J Alfred Witjes; Jurgen J Fütterer; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-12-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Caroline M A Hoeks; Diederik M Somford; Inge M van Oort; Henk Vergunst; Jorg R Oddens; Geert A Smits; Monique J Roobol; Meelan Bul; Thomas Hambrock; J Alfred Witjes; Jurgen J Fütterer; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Harrison Kim; John V Thomas; Jeffrey W Nix; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Yufeng Li; Soroush Rais-Bahrami Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2020-03-27 Impact factor: 3.173