Literature DB >> 29940139

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging - Transrectal ultrasound-guided cognitive fusion biopsy of the prostate: Clinically significant cancer detection rates stratified by the Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System version 2 assessment category.

Susan John1, Steven Cooper1, Rodney H Breau1, Trevor A Flood1, Ilias Cagiannos1, Luke T Lavallee1, Christopher Morash1, Joseph O'sullivan1, Nicola Schieda1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to report the clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) detection rate in men undergoing magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound (MRI-TRUS)-cognitive fusion (CF) targeted biopsies stratified by the Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System (PI-RADS) version 2 (v2) scores.
METHODS: With a quality assurance waiver from the IRB, we identified a cohort of men who underwent MRI-TRUS-CF and synchronous template biopsy from 2015-2017. MRI (PI-RADS v2 score, lesion size, lesion location [peripheral or transition zone (PZ/TZ)]), and CF-TRUS biopsy (operator experience, TRUS visibility, and number of biopsies) features were extracted. The primary outcome was diagnosis of clinically significant (Gleason score ≥3+4=7 or International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group ≥2) PCa.
RESULTS: During the study period, 131 men (with 142 PIRADS v2 score ≥3 lesions) met inclusion criteria; 98 men had previously negative template biopsy and 33 were on active surveillance for previously detected low-grade PCa. In total, 41.9% (55/131) men had clinically significant PCa - 17.6% (23/131) detected on targeted biopsy only, 8.4% (11/131) on template biopsy only, and 16.0% (21/131) on both targeted and template biopsy. Clinically significant PCa detection stratified by PI-RADS v2 scores were: 11.1% (3/27) for score 3 (indeterminate), 42.9% (24/56) for score 4 (significant cancer likely), and 35.6% (21/59) for score 5 (significant cancer very likely). Clinically significant PCa detection rates in targeted biopsies were better among PZ (41.8% [33/79]) compared to TZ (23.8% [15/63]) lesions (p=0.025) in TRUS visible lesions (p=0.033) and in the most experienced radiologists (p=0.05), with no difference by lesion size or number of additional core biopsies performed (all p>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive fusion MRI-TRUS-guided targeted biopsy yielded substantially lower rates of clinically significant cancer in PI-RADS v2 score 4 and 5 lesions when compared to published results using in-bore MR-guided or automated MRI-TRUS fusion guidance systems. Cancer detection was worst for TZ lesions.

Entities:  

Year:  2018        PMID: 29940139      PMCID: PMC6261717          DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.5254

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J        ISSN: 1911-6470            Impact factor:   1.862


  26 in total

1.  CUA guidelines on prostate biopsy methodology.

Authors:  Assaad El-Hakim; Sabri Moussa
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  Evaluation of apparent diffusion coefficient and MR volumetry as independent associative factors for extra-prostatic extension (EPE) in prostatic carcinoma.

Authors:  Christopher Lim; Trevor A Flood; Shaheed W Hakim; Wael M Shabana; Jeffrey S Quon; Mohamed El-Khodary; Rebecca E Thornhill; Soufiane El Hallani; Nicola Schieda
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2015-08-25       Impact factor: 4.813

3.  Prospective Evaluation of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for Prostate Cancer Detection.

Authors:  Francesca V Mertan; Matthew D Greer; Joanna H Shih; Arvin K George; Michael Kongnyuy; Akhil Muthigi; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-04-18       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Maarten de Rooij; Esther H J Hamoen; Jurgen J Fütterer; Jelle O Barentsz; Maroeska M Rovers
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 5.  The Current State of MR Imaging-targeted Biopsy Techniques for Detection of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Sadhna Verma; Peter L Choyke; Steven C Eberhardt; Aytekin Oto; Clare M Tempany; Baris Turkbey; Andrew B Rosenkrantz
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  In-Bore 3-T MR-guided Transrectal Targeted Prostate Biopsy: Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2-based Diagnostic Performance for Detection of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Nelly Tan; Wei-Chan Lin; Pooria Khoshnoodi; Nazanin H Asvadi; Jeffrey Yoshida; Daniel J A Margolis; David S K Lu; Holden Wu; Kyung Hyun Sung; David Y Lu; Jaioti Huang; Steven S Raman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-11-18       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Evaluation of MRI for diagnosis of extraprostatic extension in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Satheesh Krishna; Christopher S Lim; Matthew D F McInnes; Trevor A Flood; Wael M Shabana; Robert S Lim; Nicola Schieda
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2017-04-07       Impact factor: 4.813

8.  Prognostic value of Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System (PI-RADS) v. 2 assessment categories 4 and 5 compared to histopathological outcomes after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Christopher S Lim; Matthew D F McInnes; Robert S Lim; Rodney H Breau; Trevor A Flood; Satheesh Krishna; Christopher Morash; Wael M Shabana; Nicola Schieda
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2016-11-03       Impact factor: 4.813

9.  Comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System versions 1 and 2 for the Detection of Peripheral Zone Gleason Score 3 + 4 = 7 Cancers.

Authors:  Satheesh Krishna; Matthew McInnes; Christopher Lim; Robert Lim; Shaheed W Hakim; Trevor A Flood; Nicola Schieda
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2017-10-05       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  False positive and false negative diagnoses of prostate cancer at multi-parametric prostate MRI in active surveillance.

Authors:  Jeffrey S Quon; Bardia Moosavi; Maneesh Khanna; Trevor A Flood; Christopher S Lim; Nicola Schieda
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2015-05-23
View more
  1 in total

1.  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
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.