OBJECTIVE: To examine the performance of a primary magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasonography (US) fusion-guided targeted biopsy (TB), and in combination with an added systematic biopsy (SB). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Analysis of 318 consecutive biopsy-naïve men with suspicious multiparametric MRI (mpMRI; Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] score ≥3) undergoing transrectal TB and 10-core SB between January 2012 and December 2016. The indication for performing mpMRI was based on clinical parameters and decided by the treating urologist before admission. TB was performed with a sensor-based MRI/US fusion-guided platform. Clinically significant prostate cancer was defined as Gleason score ≥4 + 3 = 7 (International Society of Urological Pathology Grade [ISUP] grade 3) or maximum cancer core length of ≥6 mm. RESULTS: A median (interquartile range) of 14 (13-14) biopsies per case were taken. The overall cancer detection rate (CDR) was 77% (245/318). The TB alone detected 67% of prostate cancers and the SB alone detected 70%. The PI-RADS dependent CDR for the combination of TB/SB were 38% (21/55), 78% (120/154) and 95% (104/109) for PI-RADS scores of 3/4/5, respectively. Clinically significant prostate cancer was diagnosed by the combination of TB and SB in 195 men (61%) and by TB alone in 163 cases (51%). The number of missed or underestimated prostate cancers with a Gleason score ≥8 for TB alone was 31 (10%, P < 0.001) and 21 (7%, P < 0.001) for SB alone in comparison with the results of the combination of TB and SB. The rate of insignificant prostate cancer was comparable for the combination of TB and SB and TB alone (50/318, 16% vs 50/318, 16%). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-biopsy mpMRI is of incremental value in increasing the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve patients with suspicion of prostate cancer. Combining TB with SB further improved the diagnostic accuracy without increasing the rate of insignificant prostate cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the performance of a primary magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasonography (US) fusion-guided targeted biopsy (TB), and in combination with an added systematic biopsy (SB). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Analysis of 318 consecutive biopsy-naïve men with suspicious multiparametric MRI (mpMRI; Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] score ≥3) undergoing transrectal TB and 10-core SB between January 2012 and December 2016. The indication for performing mpMRI was based on clinical parameters and decided by the treating urologist before admission. TB was performed with a sensor-based MRI/US fusion-guided platform. Clinically significant prostate cancer was defined as Gleason score ≥4 + 3 = 7 (International Society of Urological Pathology Grade [ISUP] grade 3) or maximum cancer core length of ≥6 mm. RESULTS: A median (interquartile range) of 14 (13-14) biopsies per case were taken. The overall cancer detection rate (CDR) was 77% (245/318). The TB alone detected 67% of prostate cancers and the SB alone detected 70%. The PI-RADS dependent CDR for the combination of TB/SB were 38% (21/55), 78% (120/154) and 95% (104/109) for PI-RADS scores of 3/4/5, respectively. Clinically significant prostate cancer was diagnosed by the combination of TB and SB in 195 men (61%) and by TB alone in 163 cases (51%). The number of missed or underestimated prostate cancers with a Gleason score ≥8 for TB alone was 31 (10%, P < 0.001) and 21 (7%, P < 0.001) for SB alone in comparison with the results of the combination of TB and SB. The rate of insignificant prostate cancer was comparable for the combination of TB and SB and TB alone (50/318, 16% vs 50/318, 16%). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-biopsy mpMRI is of incremental value in increasing the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve patients with suspicion of prostate cancer. Combining TB with SB further improved the diagnostic accuracy without increasing the rate of insignificant prostate cancer.
Authors: Muammer Altok; Cihan Demirel; Hyunseon C Kang; Haesun Choi; David John; Irene A Inguillo; John W Davis; John F Ward Journal: BJUI Compass Date: 2021-05-04
Authors: Emanuel Darius Cata; Iulia Andras; Teodora Telecan; Attila Tamas-Szora; Radu-Tudor Coman; Dan-Vasile Stanca; Ioan Coman; Nicolae Crisan Journal: Med Pharm Rep Date: 2021-04-29
Authors: Fuad F Elkhoury; Ely R Felker; Lorna Kwan; Anthony E Sisk; Merdie Delfin; Shyam Natarajan; Leonard S Marks Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 16.681
Authors: Emanuel Cata; Iulia Andras; Matteo Ferro; Pierre Kadula; Daniel Leucuta; Gennaro Musi; Deliu-Victor Matei; Ottavio De Cobelli; Attila Tamas-Szora; Cosmin Caraiani; Andrei Lebovici; Flavia Epure; Maria Bungardean; Radu-Tudor Coman; Nicolae Crisan Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2020-12
Authors: Dordaneh Sugano; Masatomo Kaneko; Wesley Yip; Amir H Lebastchi; Giovanni E Cacciamani; Andre Luis Abreu Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Kira Kornienko; Miriam Reuter; Andreas Maxeiner; Karsten Günzel; Beatrice Kittner; Maximilian Reimann; Sebastian L Hofbauer; Laura E Wiemer; Robin Heckmann; Patrick Asbach; Johann Jakob Wendler; Martin Schostak; Thorsten Schlomm; Frank Friedersdorff; Hannes Cash Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-08-10 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Jessica Rührup; Felix Preisser; Lena Theißen; Mike Wenzel; Frederik C Roos; Andreas Becker; Luis A Kluth; Boris Bodelle; Jens Köllermann; Felix K H Chun; Philipp Mandel Journal: Front Surg Date: 2019-09-18
Authors: Madhuri Monique Rudolph; Alexander Daniel Jacques Baur; Hannes Cash; Matthias Haas; Samy Mahjoub; Alexander Hartenstein; Charlie Alexander Hamm; Nick Lasse Beetz; Frank Konietschke; Bernd Hamm; Patrick Asbach; Tobias Penzkofer Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 4.379