Franck Bladou1, Cora Fogaing1, Mark Levental2, Samuel Aronson1, Mona Alameldin3, Maurice Anidjar1. 1. Department of Urology; Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 2. Department of Radiology; Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 3. Department of Pathology; Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is being more widely used in the detection of prostate cancer (PCa), particularly after an initial negative biopsy. In this study, we compared 12-core systematic biopsy (SYS), MRI-targeted biopsy (TAR), and the association of systematic and MRI-targeted (SYS+TAR) prostate biopsy in patients with previous biopsy and those who were biopsy-naive to evaluate the differences in terms of cancer detection and clinically significant cancer detection between the three modalities. METHODS: Overall, 203 consecutive patients with suspicion of PCa were analyzed; 48.2% were biopsy-naive and 51.7% had at least one previous negative prostate biopsy. The median age was 66 years, median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was 7.9 ng/mL and median prostate volume was 46 mL. 38.9% had SYS, 19.2% TAR only, and 41.8% had SYS+TAR biopsy. RESULTS: Overall, the PCa detection (PCaDR) was 63%. The SYS+TAR biopsy detected significantly more cancer than SYS and TAR only biopsies (72.9% vs. 56.9% and 53.8% respectively; p=0.03). Detection rate of clinically significant cancer (csPCaDR) was 50.7% overall; 65.8% in the SYS+TAR biopsy vs. 39.2% in the SYS and 48.7% in the TAR groups (p=0.002). In the biopsy-naive group, PCaDR and csPCaDR were significantly higher in the SYS+TAR group than in the SYS and TAR groups (p=0.01). In the repeat biopsy group, PCaDR and csPCaDR were equivalent in the TAR and SYS+TAR groups and higher than in the SYS group (p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: TAR biopsy, when added to SYS biopsy, was associated with a higher detection rate of csPCa in biopsy-naive patients when compared to TAR and SYS only biopsies. In patients after previous negative biopsy, detection rates of csPCa were equivalent for SYS+TAR and TAR only biopsies, but higher than SYS.
INTRODUCTION: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is being more widely used in the detection of prostate cancer (PCa), particularly after an initial negative biopsy. In this study, we compared 12-core systematic biopsy (SYS), MRI-targeted biopsy (TAR), and the association of systematic and MRI-targeted (SYS+TAR) prostate biopsy in patients with previous biopsy and those who were biopsy-naive to evaluate the differences in terms of cancer detection and clinically significant cancer detection between the three modalities. METHODS: Overall, 203 consecutive patients with suspicion of PCa were analyzed; 48.2% were biopsy-naive and 51.7% had at least one previous negative prostate biopsy. The median age was 66 years, median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was 7.9 ng/mL and median prostate volume was 46 mL. 38.9% had SYS, 19.2% TAR only, and 41.8% had SYS+TAR biopsy. RESULTS: Overall, the PCa detection (PCaDR) was 63%. The SYS+TAR biopsy detected significantly more cancer than SYS and TAR only biopsies (72.9% vs. 56.9% and 53.8% respectively; p=0.03). Detection rate of clinically significant cancer (csPCaDR) was 50.7% overall; 65.8% in the SYS+TAR biopsy vs. 39.2% in the SYS and 48.7% in the TAR groups (p=0.002). In the biopsy-naive group, PCaDR and csPCaDR were significantly higher in the SYS+TAR group than in the SYS and TAR groups (p=0.01). In the repeat biopsy group, PCaDR and csPCaDR were equivalent in the TAR and SYS+TAR groups and higher than in the SYS group (p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: TAR biopsy, when added to SYS biopsy, was associated with a higher detection rate of csPCa in biopsy-naive patients when compared to TAR and SYS only biopsies. In patients after previous negative biopsy, detection rates of csPCa were equivalent for SYS+TAR and TAR only biopsies, but higher than SYS.
Authors: Guillaume Ploussard; Samuel Aronson; Vincent Pelsser; Mark Levental; Maurice Anidjar; Franck Bladou Journal: World J Urol Date: 2013-10-16 Impact factor: 4.226
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
Authors: Pierre Mozer; Morgan Rouprêt; Chloé Le Cossec; Benjamin Granger; Eva Comperat; Arachk de Gorski; Olivier Cussenot; Raphaële Renard-Penna Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-07-27 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: James S Wysock; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; William C Huang; Michael D Stifelman; Herbert Lepor; Fang-Ming Deng; Jonathan Melamed; Samir S Taneja Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-11-08 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Hashim U Ahmed; Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily; Louise C Brown; Rhian Gabe; Richard Kaplan; Mahesh K Parmar; Yolanda Collaco-Moraes; Katie Ward; Richard G Hindley; Alex Freeman; Alex P Kirkham; Robert Oldroyd; Chris Parker; Mark Emberton Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Richard J Bryant; Daniel D Sjoberg; Andrew J Vickers; Mary C Robinson; Rajeev Kumar; Luke Marsden; Michael Davis; Peter T Scardino; Jenny Donovan; David E Neal; Hans Lilja; Freddie C Hamdy Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-04-11 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Christopher Antonio Febres-Aldana; Sarah Alghamdi; Thomas A Weppelmann; Emilio Lastarria; Akshay Bhandari; Yumna Omarzai; Robert J Poppiti Journal: Urol Ann Date: 2020-10-15
Authors: E J Bass; A Pantovic; M J Connor; S Loeb; A R Rastinehad; M Winkler; Rhian Gabe; H U Ahmed Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2021-09-21 Impact factor: 5.455