Literature DB >> 29679618

Is it Time to Perform Only Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Cores? Our Experience with 1,032 Men Who Underwent Prostate Biopsy.

Pietro Pepe1, Antonio Garufi2, Gian Domenico Priolo2, Antonio Galia3, Filippo Fraggetta3, Michele Pennisi4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer and compared it with the diagnostic accuracy of transperineal saturation prostate biopsy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2011 to February 2018 repeat saturation prostate biopsy (the reference test) was done due to suspicion of cancer in 1,032 men with a median age of 63 years in whom median prostate specific antigen was 8.6 ng/ml. All patients underwent 3.0 Tesla pelvic multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging before saturation prostate biopsy. Additional targeted fusion prostate biopsy was done of lesions with a PI-RADS™ (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System) score of 3 or greater.
RESULTS: T1c prostate cancer was found in 372 of the 1,032 patients (36%). Of these cases 272 (73.1%) were classified as clinically significant prostate cancer. Saturation prostate biopsy vs targeted fusion prostate biopsy and a PI-RADS score of 3 or greater vs targeted fusion prostate biopsy and a PI-RADS score of 4 or greater diagnosed 95.6% vs 83.8% vs 60.3% of clinically significant prostate cancers (p <0.0001). Saturation prostate biopsy missed 12 of 272 clinically significant prostate cancers (4.5%) vs 44 (16.2%) and 108 of 272 (39.7%) missed by targeted fusion prostate biopsy and a PI-RADS score of 3 or greater and a score of 4 or greater, respectively (p <0.0001). As a triage test multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging would have spared 49.3% vs 73.6% of patients using a PI-RADS cutoff of 3 or greater vs 4 or greater.
CONCLUSIONS: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging could significantly reduce the number of unnecessary repeat prostate biopsies in about 50% of cases in which a PI-RADS score of 3 or greater is used. At the same time patients should be informed of the 16.2% and 39.7% false-negative rates of clinically significant prostate cancer for targeted fusion prostate biopsy of PI-RADS 3 or greater and 4 or greater lesions, respectively.
Copyright © 2018 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  biopsy; diagnosis; diagnostic imaging; magnetic resonance imaging; prostatic neoplasms

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29679618     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.04.061

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  24 in total

1.  A Novel Prediction Tool Based on Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Determine the Biopsy Strategy for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients with PSA Levels Less than 50 ng/ml.

Authors:  Bi-Ming He; Zhen-Kai Shi; Hu-Sheng Li; Heng-Zhi Lin; Qing-Song Yang; Jian-Ping Lu; Ying-Hao Sun; Hai-Feng Wang
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 5.344

2.  Evidence-based guideline recommendations on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer: A Cancer Care Ontario updated clinical practice guideline.

Authors:  Masoom A Haider; Judy Brown; Jospeh L K Chin; Nauthan Perlis; Nicola Schieda; Andrew Loblaw
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2022-02       Impact factor: 1.862

3.  Optimal Number of Systematic Biopsy Cores Used in Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Prostate Biopsy.

Authors:  Shogo Teraoka; Masashi Honda; Ryutaro Shimizu; Ryoma Nishikawa; Yusuke Kimura; Tetsuya Yumioka; Hideto Iwamoto; Shuichi Morizane; Katsuya Hikita; Atsushi Takenaka
Journal:  Yonago Acta Med       Date:  2021-07-09       Impact factor: 1.641

4.  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

5.  Multiparametric MRI Versus SelectMDx Accuracy in the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant PCa in Men Enrolled in Active Surveillance.

Authors:  Pietro Pepe; Giuseppe Dibenedetto; Ludovica Pepe; Michele Pennisi
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2020 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.155

6.  Magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasonography fusion guided seed placement in a phantom: Accuracy between 2-seed versus 1-seed strategies.

Authors:  Qian Li; Yu Duan; Masoud Baikpour; Theodore T Pierce; Colin J McCarthy; Ashraf Thabet; Suk-Tak Chan; Anthony E Samir
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2020-06-10       Impact factor: 3.528

7.  Predicting Prostate Cancer Upgrading of Biopsy Gleason Grade Group at Radical Prostatectomy Using Machine Learning-Assisted Decision-Support Models.

Authors:  Hailang Liu; Kun Tang; Ejun Peng; Liang Wang; Ding Xia; Zhiqiang Chen
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2020-12-22       Impact factor: 3.989

8.  Comparison of biopsy strategies for prostate biopsy according to lesion size and PSA density in MRI-directed biopsy pathway.

Authors:  Mi Yeon Park; Kye Jin Park; Bumjin Lim; Mi-Hyun Kim; In Gab Jeong; Jeong Kon Kim
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-07-31

9.  Clinical Outcomes of Hydrogel Spacer Injection Space OAR in Men Submitted to Hypofractionated Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Pietro Pepe; Maria Tamburo; Michele Pennisi; Dario Marletta; Francesco Marletta
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2021 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.155

10.  PI-RADS v2.1 Combined With Prostate-Specific Antigen Density for Detection of Prostate Cancer in Peripheral Zone.

Authors:  Jing Wen; Tingting Tang; Yugang Ji; Yilan Zhang
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-04-08       Impact factor: 5.738

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.