PURPOSE: There exists a growing debate as to whether multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with fusion transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy alone without a standard template biopsy is sufficient to evaluate patients with suspected prostate cancer. Our objective was to describe our experience with fusion targeted prostate biopsy and assess whether it could obviate the need for concomitant standard 12-core template prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our prospectively collected database of patients who underwent fusion transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. All images and lesions were graded according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2. All patients underwent targeted biopsy followed by standard 12-core double sextant biopsy within the same session. Clinically significant prostate cancer was defined as Grade Group 2 or greater prostate cancer. RESULTS: A total of 506 patients were included in analysis. Indications were elevated prostate specific antigen with a previous negative prostate biopsy in 46% of cases, prostate cancer on active surveillance in 35%, elevated prostate specific antigen without a prior prostate biopsy in 15% and an isolated abnormal digital rectal examination in 3%. For standard vs fusion prostate biopsy the overall cancer detection rate was 57.7% vs 54.0% (p=0.12) and the clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate was 24.7% vs 30.8% (p=0.001). Of the 185 patients diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer 29 (16%) would have been missed if only targeted fusion prostate biopsy had been performed. CONCLUSIONS: Fusion targeted prostate biopsy is associated with a higher detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer compared to standard double sextant biopsy. However, standard double sextant biopsy should still be performed as part of the routine fusion targeted prostate biopsy procedure to avoid missing a significant proportion of clinically significant prostate cancer.
PURPOSE: There exists a growing debate as to whether multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with fusion transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy alone without a standard template biopsy is sufficient to evaluate patients with suspected prostate cancer. Our objective was to describe our experience with fusion targeted prostate biopsy and assess whether it could obviate the need for concomitant standard 12-core template prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our prospectively collected database of patients who underwent fusion transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. All images and lesions were graded according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2. All patients underwent targeted biopsy followed by standard 12-core double sextant biopsy within the same session. Clinically significant prostate cancer was defined as Grade Group 2 or greater prostate cancer. RESULTS: A total of 506 patients were included in analysis. Indications were elevated prostate specific antigen with a previous negative prostate biopsy in 46% of cases, prostate cancer on active surveillance in 35%, elevated prostate specific antigen without a prior prostate biopsy in 15% and an isolated abnormal digital rectal examination in 3%. For standard vs fusion prostate biopsy the overall cancer detection rate was 57.7% vs 54.0% (p=0.12) and the clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate was 24.7% vs 30.8% (p=0.001). Of the 185 patients diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer 29 (16%) would have been missed if only targeted fusion prostate biopsy had been performed. CONCLUSIONS: Fusion targeted prostate biopsy is associated with a higher detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer compared to standard double sextant biopsy. However, standard double sextant biopsy should still be performed as part of the routine fusion targeted prostate biopsy procedure to avoid missing a significant proportion of clinically significant 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
Authors: Joseba Salguero; Enrique Gómez-Gómez; José Valero-Rosa; Julia Carrasco-Valiente; Juan Mesa; Cristina Martin; Juan Pablo Campos-Hernández; Juan Manuel Rubio; Daniel López; María José Requena Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2020-11-26 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Nathan Velarde; Antonio C Westphalen; Hao G Nguyen; John Neuhaus; Katsuto Shinohara; Jeffry P Simko; Peder E Larson; Kirti Magudia Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2022-01-07