Literature DB >> 31047733

Role of Core Number and Location in Targeted Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Prostate Biopsy.

Amanda Jane Lu1, Jamil S Syed1, Kamyar Ghabili1, Walter Robert Hsiang1, Kevin A Nguyen1, Michael S Leapman1, Preston C Sprenkle2.   

Abstract

The optimal method of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-ultrasound (US) fusion biopsy to adequately sample regions of interest (ROIs) remains unknown. We sought to determine the number and location of cores needed to adequately detect clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa). We identified patients undergoing MRI-US fusion prostate biopsy at our institution for known history or clinical suspicion of PCa. Multiparametric MRI studies were reviewed using Likert and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2 schema. Multiple targeted cores were taken from each ROI followed by 12-core systematic biopsy. In a distinct cohort of patients, lesions were targeted using a predetermined five-core template. We estimated cancers detected through sampling of five or fewer cores, assessed by core number and core location. We identified 744 patients with 581 lesions with PCa. Seventy-seven percent (279/361) of Gleason (G) ≥3+4 tumors and 72% (137/189) of G >3+4 tumors were detected on two-core sampling. Relative to all targeted cores, a two-core approach missed 16% of clinically significant cancers at first biopsy, 27% in prior negative, and 32% in active surveillance patients. Detection of G ≥3+4 cancers did not differ by core location. Sampling of two cores of ROIs misses nearly one-quarter of clinically significant PCa detected on additional sampling. PATIENT
SUMMARY: We aimed to understand how the number of cores obtained from a suspicious area during prostate magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy affects cancer detection. We found that sampling of five cores missed substantially fewer cancers compared to two cores. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy; Prostate cancer; Region of interest

Year:  2019        PMID: 31047733     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.04.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  20 in total

Review 1.  Techniques and Outcomes of MRI-TRUS Fusion Prostate Biopsy.

Authors:  Masatomo Kaneko; Dordaneh Sugano; Amir H Lebastchi; Vinay Duddalwar; Jamal Nabhani; Christopher Haiman; Inderbir S Gill; Giovanni E Cacciamani; Andre Luis Abreu
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2021-03-22       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  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

Review 3.  Quality checkpoints in the MRI-directed prostate cancer diagnostic pathway.

Authors:  Tristan Barrett; Maarten de Rooij; Francesco Giganti; Clare Allen; Jelle O Barentsz; Anwar R Padhani
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2022-09-27       Impact factor: 16.430

Review 4.  The current role of MRI for guiding active surveillance in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Guillaume Ploussard; Olivier Rouvière; Morgan Rouprêt; Roderick van den Bergh; Raphaële Renard-Penna
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2022-04-07       Impact factor: 16.430

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.  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

7.  Optimizing Spatial Biopsy Sampling for the Detection of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Alex G Raman; Karthik V Sarma; Steven S Raman; Alan M Priester; Sohrab Afshari Mirak; Hannah H Riskin-Jones; Nikhil Dhinagar; William Speier; Ely Felker; Anthony E Sisk; David Lu; Adam Kinnaird; Robert E Reiter; Leonard S Marks; Corey W Arnold
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2021-04-28       Impact factor: 7.600

8.  Using Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) Scores to Select an Optimal Prostate Biopsy Method: A Secondary Analysis of the Trio Study.

Authors:  Michael Ahdoot; Amir H Lebastchi; Lori Long; Andrew R Wilbur; Patrick T Gomella; Sherif Mehralivand; Michael A Daneshvar; Nitin K Yerram; Luke P O'Connor; Alex Z Wang; Sandeep Gurram; Jonathan Bloom; M Minhaj Siddiqui; W Marston Linehan; Maria Merino; Peter L Choyke; Paul Pinsky; Howard Parnes; Joanna H Shih; Baris Turkbey; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  Eur Urol Oncol       Date:  2021-04-10

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.