Steven M Monda1, Joel M Vetter2, Gerald L Andriole2, Kathryn J Fowler3, Anup S Shetty3, Jonathan R Weese2, Eric H Kim2. 1. Division of Urologic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO; Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. Electronic address: m.monda@wustl.edu. 2. Division of Urologic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. 3. Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance of the 2 most common approaches of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy (TB)-cognitive registration targeted biopsy (COG-TB) and software fusion targeted biopsy (FUS-TB)-we assessed our institutional experience with both methods. TB has emerged to complement systematic template biopsy (SB) in prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis; however, which magnetic resonance imaging targeting methodology is diagnostically better remains unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 510 patients underwent TB at our institution before and after the adoption of fusion software with the UroNav platform (Invivo Corporation, Gainsville, FL). All patients had concurrent 12-core SB. We compared rates of clinically significant PCa detection, and rates of upstaging and missed diagnosis in reference to SB among patients who received COG-TB and patients who received FUS-TB. We also compared both COG-TB and FUS-TB results to their paired SB results. RESULTS: The rates of upstaging or missing clinically significant PCa with FUS-TB (in reference to SB) was not significantly different from COG-TB (P = 0.172), nor was the risk of missing clinically significant PCa different between FUS-TB vs COG-TB on logistic regression ( Odds ratio = 0.55, P = 0.106). No significant difference in biopsy outcomes was observed between FUS-TB and COG-TB (P = 0.171). We did find significant differences between FUS-TB and SB and between COG-TB and SB, with SB finding more clinically insignificant PCa (P < 0.001 and P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: In our institutional experience, no significant difference was observed between the diagnostic ability of COG-TB vs FUS-TB for detecting clinically significant PCa. Greater evidence demonstrating an advantage of FUS-TB over COG-TB would be required for clear recommendations in favor of FUS-TB.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance of the 2 most common approaches of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy (TB)-cognitive registration targeted biopsy (COG-TB) and software fusion targeted biopsy (FUS-TB)-we assessed our institutional experience with both methods. TB has emerged to complement systematic template biopsy (SB) in prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis; however, which magnetic resonance imaging targeting methodology is diagnostically better remains unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 510 patients underwent TB at our institution before and after the adoption of fusion software with the UroNav platform (Invivo Corporation, Gainsville, FL). All patients had concurrent 12-core SB. We compared rates of clinically significant PCa detection, and rates of upstaging and missed diagnosis in reference to SB among patients who received COG-TB and patients who received FUS-TB. We also compared both COG-TB and FUS-TB results to their paired SB results. RESULTS: The rates of upstaging or missing clinically significant PCa with FUS-TB (in reference to SB) was not significantly different from COG-TB (P = 0.172), nor was the risk of missing clinically significant PCa different between FUS-TB vs COG-TB on logistic regression ( Odds ratio = 0.55, P = 0.106). No significant difference in biopsy outcomes was observed between FUS-TB and COG-TB (P = 0.171). We did find significant differences between FUS-TB and SB and between COG-TB and SB, with SB finding more clinically insignificant PCa (P < 0.001 and P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: In our institutional experience, no significant difference was observed between the diagnostic ability of COG-TB vs FUS-TB for detecting clinically significant PCa. Greater evidence demonstrating an advantage of FUS-TB over COG-TB would be required for clear recommendations in favor of FUS-TB.
Authors: Christian Herz; Kyle MacNeil; Peter A Behringer; Junichi Tokuda; Alireza Mehrtash; Parvin Mousavi; Ron Kikinis; Fiona M Fennessy; Clare M Tempany; Kemal Tuncali; Andriy Fedorov Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Mitch Hayes; Solange Bassale; Nicholas H Chakiryan; Luc Boileau; Jacob Grassauer; Matthew Wagner; Bryan Foster; Fergus Coakley; Sudhir Isharwal; Christopher L Amling; Jen-Jane Liu Journal: BJUI Compass Date: 2022-06-05
Authors: Lois Kim; Nicholas Boxall; Anne George; Keith Burling; Pete Acher; Jonathan Aning; Stuart McCracken; Toby Page; Vincent J Gnanapragasam Journal: BMC Med Date: 2020-04-17 Impact factor: 8.775