Literature DB >> 31306539

Optimising the number of cores for magnetic resonance imaging-guided targeted and systematic transperineal prostate biopsy.

Nienke L Hansen1,2, Tristan Barrett1,3, Thomas Lloyd1,4, Anne Warren1,5, Christina Samel6, Ola Bratt1,7, Christof Kastner1,4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess cancer detection rates of different target-dependent transperineal magnetic resonance (MR)/ultrasonography (US) fusion-guided biopsy templates with reduced number of systematic cores. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Single-centre outcome of transperineal MR/US fusion-guided biopsies of 487 men with a single target MR imaging (MRI) lesion, prospectively collected between 2012 and 2016. All men underwent transperineal targeted biopsy (TB) with two cores, followed by 18-24 systematic sector biopsies (SB) using the Ginsburg protocol. Gleason score ≥7 prostate cancer detection rates for two-core TB, four-core extended TB (eTB), 10- to 20-core saturation TB (sTB) including cores from sectors adjacent to the target, and 14 core ipsilateral TB (iTB) were compared to combined TB+SB.
RESULTS: Cancer was detected in 345 men and Gleason score 7-10 cancer in 211 men. TB alone detected 67%, eTB 76%, sTB 91% and iTB 91% of these Gleason score 7-10 cancers. In the subgroup of 33 men (7% of cohort) with an anterior >0.5 mL highly suspicious MRI lesion and a prostate volume ≤45 mL, four-core eTB detected 31 of 32 cancers (97%) and all 26 Gleason score 7-10 cancers.
CONCLUSION: sTB detected Gleason score 7-10 cancer in 25% more of the men than a two-core TB approach, and in almost as many men (91%) as the 20-26-core combined TB+SB, while needing only 10-20 cores. A four-core extended TB may suffice for large, highly suspicious anterior lesions in small or slightly enlarged prostates.
© 2019 The Authors BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International.

Entities:  

Keywords:  #PCSM; #ProstateCancer; MRI-TRUS fusion; magnetic resonance imaging; prostate biopsy; transperineal

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31306539     DOI: 10.1111/bju.14865

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJU Int        ISSN: 1464-4096            Impact factor:   5.588


  18 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

Review 2.  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 3.  Developments in optimizing transperineal prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Emily Cheng; Meenakshi Davuluri; Patrick J Lewicki; Jim C Hu; Spyridon P Basourakos
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 2.808

4.  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

Review 5.  Magnetic Resonance-Guided Prostate Ablation.

Authors:  David A Woodrum; Akira Kawashima; Krzysztof R Gorny; Lance A Mynderse
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2019-12-02       Impact factor: 1.513

6.  Comparison of biopsy strategies for prostate biopsy according to lesion size and PSA density in MRI-directed biopsy pathway.

Authors:  Mi Yeon Park; Kye Jin Park; Bumjin Lim; Mi-Hyun Kim; In Gab Jeong; Jeong Kon Kim
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-07-31

7.  Prostate cancer detection rate in men undergoing transperineal template-guided saturation and targeted prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Basil Kaufmann; Karim Saba; Tobias S Schmidli; Stephanie Stutz; Leon Bissig; Anna Jelena Britschgi; Evodia Schaeren; Alexander Gu; Nicole Langenegger; Tullio Sulser; Daniel Eberli; Etienne X Keller; Thomas Hermanns; Cédric Poyet
Journal:  Prostate       Date:  2021-12-16       Impact factor: 4.012

8.  Systematic sampling during MRI-US fusion prostate biopsy can overcome errors of targeting-prospective single center experience after 300 cases in first biopsy setting.

Authors:  Emanuel Cata; Iulia Andras; Matteo Ferro; Pierre Kadula; Daniel Leucuta; Gennaro Musi; Deliu-Victor Matei; Ottavio De Cobelli; Attila Tamas-Szora; Cosmin Caraiani; Andrei Lebovici; Flavia Epure; Maria Bungardean; Radu-Tudor Coman; Nicolae Crisan
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2020-12

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.  Clinical implementation of pre-biopsy magnetic resonance imaging pathways for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Bas Israël; Jos Immerzeel; Marloes van der Leest; Gerjon Hannink; Patrik Zámecnik; Joyce Bomers; Ivo G Schoots; Jean-Paul van Basten; Frans Debruyne; Inge van Oort; Michiel Sedelaar; Jelle Barentsz
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2021-08-23       Impact factor: 5.969

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.