Literature DB >> 29733837

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion Prostate Biopsy-Are 2 Biopsy Cores per Magnetic Resonance Imaging Lesion Required?

Pantelis Dimitroulis1, Robert Rabenalt2, Alessandro Nini3, Andreas Hiester1, Irene Esposito4, Lars Schimmöller5, Gerald Antoch5, Peter Albers1, Christian Arsov1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: For multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy the number of biopsy cores obtained is arbitrarily established by urologists. Moreover, a general consensus is lacking on the number of biopsy cores to be obtained from a single magnetic resonance imaging lesion. Therefore, we evaluated the feasibility of obtaining only 1 biopsy core per magnetic resonance imaging lesion.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated a total of 2,128 biopsy cores of 1,064 prostatic lesions (2 cores per lesion) in 418 patients in regard to prostate cancer detection (histology) and the Gleason score of the first biopsy core compared to the second biopsy core. Two analyses were performed, including patient level analysis based on prostate cancer detection per patient and lesion level analysis based exclusively on the histology of each lesion regardless of the overall histological outcome of the case.
RESULTS: The overall prostate cancer detection rate was 45.7% (191 of 418 patients). The first biopsy core detected 170 of all 191 prostate cancers (89%). In 17 of these 170 prostate cancers (10%) the second biopsy core revealed Gleason score upgrading. Nine of the 21 prostate cancers (43%) missed by the first biopsy core had a Gleason score of 6. Altogether 537 of the 2,128 biopsy cores were positive, including 283 first (26.6%) and 254 second (24%) biopsy cores (p ≤0.001). The concordance between the first and second biopsy cores was 89% (κ = 0.71). There was a discrepancy with Gleason score upgrading in 28 of 212 lesions (13.2%) with positive first and second biopsy cores.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that obtaining more than 1 biopsy core per magnetic resonance imaging lesion only slightly improves the prostate cancer detection rate and Gleason grading.
Copyright © 2018 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  diagnosis; image-guided biopsy; magnetic resonance imaging; neoplasm grading; prostatic neoplasms

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29733837     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.05.002

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


  10 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  MRI-targeted biopsy cores from prostate index lesions: assessment and prediction of the number needed.

Authors:  Nick Lasse Beetz; Franziska Dräger; Charlie Alexander Hamm; Seyd Shnayien; Madhuri Monique Rudolph; Konrad Froböse; Sefer Elezkurtaj; Matthias Haas; Patrick Asbach; Bernd Hamm; Samy Mahjoub; Frank Konietschke; Maximilian Wechsung; Felix Balzer; Hannes Cash; Sebastian Hofbauer; Tobias Penzkofer
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2022-10-08       Impact factor: 5.455

4.  What is the ideal number of biopsy cores per lesion in targeted prostate biopsy?

Authors:  Gokhan Sonmez; Turev Demirtas; Sevket T Tombul; Figen Ozturk; Abdullah Demirtas
Journal:  Prostate Int       Date:  2020-04-23

5.  Prostate cancer: diagnostic yield of modified transrectal ultrasound-guided twelve-core combined biopsy (targeted plus systematic biopsies) using prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Chorog Song; Sung Yoon Park
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2021-06-28

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.  Systematic biopsy should not be omitted in the era of combined magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsies of the prostate.

Authors:  Branimir Lodeta; Vladimir Trkulja; Georg Kolroser-Sarmiento; Danijel Jozipovic; Aigul Salmhofer; Herbert Augustin
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2021-09-09       Impact factor: 2.370

8.  Diagnostic accuracy and clinical implications of robotic assisted MRI-US fusion guided target saturation biopsy of the prostate.

Authors:  Christian Wetterauer; Pawel Trotsenko; Marc Olivier Matthias; Christian Breit; Nicola Keller; Anja Meyer; Philipp Brantner; Tatjana Vlajnic; Lukas Bubendorf; David Jean Winkel; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Hans Helge Seifert
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-10-12       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Optimizing MRI-targeted prostate biopsy: the diagnostic benefit of additional targeted biopsy cores.

Authors:  Chad R Tracy; Kevin J Flynn; Daniel D Sjoberg; Paul T Gellhaus; Catherine M Metz; Behfar Ehdaie
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2020-10-27       Impact factor: 2.954

10.  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 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.