Literature DB >> 29361246

Precision Matters in MR Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsies: Evidence from a Prospective Study of Cognitive and Elastic Fusion Registration Transrectal Biopsies.

François Cornud1, Mathieu Roumiguié1, Nicolas Barry de Longchamps1, Guillaume Ploussard1, Eric Bruguière1, Daniel Portalez1, Bernard Malavaud1.   

Abstract

Purpose To measure the precision in placement of a biopsy needle in a magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-detected target with transrectal ultrasonography (US), to document the clinical relevance of precision, and to report on the precision of cognitive and software-based registrations. Materials and Methods This prospective study was approved by the institutional review board and performed between June 2013 and September 2013. Patients provided informed verbal consent. Two cores each were obtained with cognitive and fusion techniques in 88 patients with a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 1 score of at least 3. Precision was measured with Euclidian geometry by using the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine archives of the biopsy as the distance from the core to the center (dCC) and the distance from the core to the surface of the target modeled as a sphere. To address clustering of data from multiple cores in the same patients, analyses of precision focused on the best shot for a patient or a technique. The Welch unequal variance t test and Yates corrected χ2 test were used as appropriate. Results Mean precision was 2.5 mm (95% confidence interval: 1.8 mm, 3.3 mm). Positive cores were closer to the center than were negative cores (dCC: 1.7 mm vs 3.1 mm, respectively; P = .025). More cancers were detected with on-target than off-target cores (33 of 71 cores [46.5%] vs three of 17 cores [17.6%]; P = .03). Cores obtained with the fusion technique achieved a higher precision than did cores obtained with the cognitive technique (dCC: 2.8 mm vs 7.1 mm, respectively; P < .0001). Targeted cores demonstrated cancer in 44 patients. Fewer cancers were detected with the cognitive technique than with the fusion technique (31 of 44 patients [70.5%] vs 40 of 44 patients [90.9%]; P = .03). Conclusion A deformable MR imaging/transrectal US image registration system achieved a higher precision and depicted cancer in more patients than did the cognitive freehand technique. © RSNA, 2018.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29361246     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017162916

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  11 in total

1.  MRI-targeted biopsies: What's next?

Authors:  Guillaume Ploussard; Alberto Briganti
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  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

3.  Gleason Grade Group Concordance between Preoperative Targeted Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Histopathologic Analysis: A Comparison Between In-Bore MRI-guided and MRI-Transrectal US Fusion Prostate Biopsies.

Authors:  Daniel N Costa; Qi Cai; Yin Xi; Debora Z Recchimuzzi; Naveen Subramanian; Aditya Bagrodia; Neil M Rofsky; Claus G Roehrborn; Brad Hornberger; Rajal B Shah; Kenneth Goldberg; Alberto Diaz de Leon; Ivan Pedrosa
Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer       Date:  2021-03-05

Review 4.  The current role of MRI for guiding active surveillance in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Guillaume Ploussard; Olivier Rouvière; Morgan Rouprêt; Roderick van den Bergh; Raphaële Renard-Penna
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2022-04-07       Impact factor: 16.430

5.  Template for MR Visualization and Needle Targeting.

Authors:  Rui Li; Sheng Xu; Ivane Bakhutashvili; Ismail B Turkbey; Peter Choyke; Peter Pinto; Bradford Wood; Zion T H Tse
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2018-11-28       Impact factor: 3.934

6.  Independent Evaluation of the Respective Predictive Values for High-Grade Prostate Cancer of Clinical Information and RNA Biomarkers after Upfront MRI and Image-Guided Biopsies.

Authors:  Mathieu Roumiguié; Guillaume Ploussard; Léonor Nogueira; Eric Bruguière; Olivier Meyrignac; Marine Lesourd; Sarah Péricart; Bernard Malavaud
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2020-01-24       Impact factor: 6.639

7.  Tracked Foley catheter for motion compensation during fusion image-guided prostate procedures: a phantom study.

Authors:  Graham R Hale; Filippo Pesapane; Sheng Xu; Ivane Bakhutashvili; Neil Glossop; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto; Bradford J Wood
Journal:  Eur Radiol Exp       Date:  2020-04-16

8.  MRI Characteristics Accurately Predict Biochemical Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Cécile Manceau; Jean-Baptiste Beauval; Marine Lesourd; Christophe Almeras; Richard Aziza; Jean-Romain Gautier; Guillaume Loison; Ambroise Salin; Christophe Tollon; Michel Soulié; Bernard Malavaud; Mathieu Roumiguié; Guillaume Ploussard
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2020-11-26       Impact factor: 4.241

9.  Assessment of the Minimal Targeted Biopsy Core Number per MRI Lesion for Improving Prostate Cancer Grading Prediction.

Authors:  Guillaume Ploussard; Jean-Baptiste Beauval; Raphaële Renard-Penna; Marine Lesourd; Cécile Manceau; Christophe Almeras; Jean-Romain Gautier; Guillaume Loison; Daniel Portalez; Ambroise Salin; Michel Soulié; Christophe Tollon; Bernard Malavaud; Mathieu Roumiguié
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2020-01-15       Impact factor: 4.241

10.  "Prostate management" under MRI-guidance: 7 years of improvements.

Authors:  Thibault Tricard; Julien Garnon; Roberto Luigi Cazzato; Intisar Al Hashimi; Afshin Gangi; Hervé Lang
Journal:  Transl Cancer Res       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 1.241

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.