Literature DB >> 31277776

Magnetic Resonance Imaging-guided In-bore and Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Prostate Biopsies: An Adjusted Comparison of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Detection Rate.

Daniel N Costa1, Kenneth Goldberg2, Alberto Diaz de Leon2, Yair Lotan2, Yin Xi2, Muhammad Aziz2, Yuval Freifeld2, Vitaly Margulis2, Ganesh Raj2, Claus G Roehrborn2, Brad Hornberger2, Neil Desai2, Aditya Bagrodia2, Franto Francis2, Ivan Pedrosa2, Jeffrey A Cadeddu2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: With the increasing adoption of targeted prostate biopsies, it becomes important to understand the strengths and shortcomings of the techniques available for targeting suspicious lesions.
OBJECTIVE: To compare clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection rate with magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound (MRI-TRUS) fusion versus in-bore biopsy in men with abnormal multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This single-center, retrospective analysis of prospectively generated data included all men with abnormal mpMRI and fusion or in-bore biopsy between May 2017 and April 2018. Grade group (GG) 2-5 cancers were considered csPCa. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Detection of csPCa was adjusted according to patient- and lesion-related characteristics using propensity score weighting. Secondary endpoints included the detection of clinically insignificant tumors and the rate of GG upgrade from biopsy to prostatectomy specimen. Analyses were performed at patient and lesion levels. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 103 and 300 men were included in the in-bore and fusion cohorts, respectively. On a per-patient basis, in-bore biopsies detected a higher proportion of csPCa (61%, 63/103) than fusion plus systematic biopsies (47%, 141/300; adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 2.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6-2.8, p<0.0001). In-bore biopsies also detected fewer (11%, 11/103) clinically insignificant cancers than fusion biopsies (18%, 53/300; OR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.3-0.8, p=0.001). Of those who had radical prostatectomy, GG upgrade after surgery was seen in 17% (4/24) of the men in the in-bore cohort and in 27% (22/82) of the men in the fusion cohort (p=0.55).
CONCLUSIONS: MRI-guided in-bore biopsies detected more clinically significant and fewer insignificant prostate cancers than MRI-TRUS fusion targeted biopsies. Further cost-utility and patient outcome analyses are needed. PATIENT
SUMMARY: In-bore biopsies (where the patient is on the magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] scanner itself) detected more aggressive cancers and fewer indolent cancers than fusion (where software blends MRI and ultrasound images) biopsies. These findings may help patients and physicians choose the best biopsy approach.
Copyright © 2018 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biopsy; Diagnosis; Imaging; Propensity score; Prostate cancer

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 31277776     DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.08.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol Oncol        ISSN: 2588-9311


  14 in total

1.  In-Bore MRI-guided Prostate Biopsies in Patients with Prior Positive Transrectal US-guided Biopsy Results: Pathologic Outcomes and Predictors of Missed Cancers.

Authors:  Kareem K Elfatairy; Christopher P Filson; Martin G Sanda; Adeboye O Osunkoya; Sherif G Nour
Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer       Date:  2020-09-25

2.  Gleason Grade Group Concordance between Preoperative Targeted Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Histopathologic Analysis: A Comparison Between In-Bore MRI-guided and MRI-Transrectal US Fusion Prostate Biopsies.

Authors:  Daniel N Costa; Qi Cai; Yin Xi; Debora Z Recchimuzzi; Naveen Subramanian; Aditya Bagrodia; Neil M Rofsky; Claus G Roehrborn; Brad Hornberger; Rajal B Shah; Kenneth Goldberg; Alberto Diaz de Leon; Ivan Pedrosa
Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer       Date:  2021-03-05

3.  Selecting patients for magnetic resonance imaging cognitive versus ultrasound fusion biopsy of the prostate: A within-patient comparison.

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

4.  In-Bore MRI-guided Prostate Biopsies: Retrospective Observational Study of Complementary Nontargeted Sampling of Normal-appearing Areas at Multiparametric MRI.

Authors:  Kareem K Elfatairy; Christopher P Filson; Martin G Sanda; Adeboye O Osunkoya; Sherif G Nour
Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer       Date:  2019-11-29

Review 5.  MRI-targeted prostate biopsy: the next step forward!

Authors:  Emanuel Darius Cata; Iulia Andras; Teodora Telecan; Attila Tamas-Szora; Radu-Tudor Coman; Dan-Vasile Stanca; Ioan Coman; Nicolae Crisan
Journal:  Med Pharm Rep       Date:  2021-04-29

Review 6.  Transperineal prostate biopsy: a review of technique.

Authors:  Alice Thomson; Mo Li; Jeremy Grummet; Shomik Sengupta
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2020-12

Review 7.  Comparative Effectiveness of Techniques in Targeted Prostate Biopsy.

Authors:  Dordaneh Sugano; Masatomo Kaneko; Wesley Yip; Amir H Lebastchi; Giovanni E Cacciamani; Andre Luis Abreu
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-22       Impact factor: 6.639

8.  Multiparametric Prostate MRI in Biopsy-Naïve Men: A Prospective Evaluation of Performance and Biopsy Strategies.

Authors:  Brage Krüger-Stokke; Helena Bertilsson; Sverre Langørgen; Torill Anita Eidhammer Sjøbakk; Tone Frost Bathen; Kirsten Margrete Selnæs
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-10-14       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 9.  The challenge of prostate biopsy guidance in the era of mpMRI detected lesion: ultrasound-guided versus in-bore biopsy.

Authors:  Auke Jager; Joan C Vilanova; Massimo Michi; Hessel Wijkstra; Jorg R Oddens
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-07-29       Impact factor: 3.039

10.  In-bore MRI targeted biopsy.

Authors:  Martina Gurgitano; Eleonora Ancona; Duilia Maresca; Paul Eugene Summers; Sarah Alessi; Roberta Maggioni; Alessandro Liguori; Marco Pandolfi; Giovanni Maria Rodà; Massimo De Filippo; Aldo Paolucci; Giuseppe Petralia
Journal:  Acta Biomed       Date:  2020-09-23
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.