Literature DB >> 31411968

A Multicentre Analysis of the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Following Transperineal Image-fusion Targeted and Nontargeted Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Men at Risk.

Saiful Miah1, Feargus Hosking-Jervis2, Martin J Connor2, David Eldred-Evans2, Taimur T Shah3, Manit Arya4, Neil Barber5, Jeetesh Bhardwa5, Simon Bott5, Daniel Burke5, Alan Doherty5, Christopher Foster6, Alex Freeman7, Richard Hindley5, Charles Jameson6, Omer Karim5, Marc Laniado5, Bruce Montgomery5, Raj Nigam4, Shonit Punwani8, Andrew Sinclair5, Mathias Winkler9, Clare Allen8, Hashim U Ahmed3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prostate biopsy guided by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used to obtain tissue from men with suspected prostate cancer (PC).
OBJECTIVE: To report a multicentre series of image-fusion transperineal prostate biopsies and compare the diagnostic yield of clinically significant PC (csPC) between targeted and nontargeted biopsies. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The study included 640 consecutive patients with elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA) presenting for first biopsy or following a previous negative transrectal biopsy under the care of 13 urologists in 11 centres in the UK (April 2014-June 2017). INTERVENTION: Multiparametric MRI was carried out in 61 approved prostate MRI centres with transperineal targeted alone (n=283) or targeted plus nontargeted (n=357) transperineal rigid image-fusion targeted biopsy (MIM-Symphony-DX). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Rates of csPC and insignificant cancer detection in targeted and nontargeted biopsies were measured using a number of thresholds to define clinical significance. The primary definition was Gleason≥4+3 or any grade ≥6mm. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The mean age, median PSA, and median prostate volume for the cohort were 63.8yr (standard deviation [SD] 8.4), 6.3 ng/ml (SD 5.8), and 42.0cm3 (SD 24.7), respectively. Overall, 276/640 men (43.1%) were diagnosed with csPC. csPC was detected from targeted biopsies alone in 263/640 cases (41.1%). Of the 357 men who underwent nontargeted biopsies, three (0.8%) had csPC exclusively in nontargeted cores, with no evidence of cancer in targeted cores. Overall, 32/357 (9.0%) had csPC in nontargeted biopsies regardless of the targeted biopsy findings. Clinically insignificant disease in nontargeted biopsies was detected in 93/357 men (26.1%). Our findings were consistent across all other thresholds of clinical significance. Limitations include the lack of nontargeted biopsies in all men.
CONCLUSIONS: In this large multicentre series, nontargeted prostate biopsy cores had a low yield of csPC and a high yield of clinically insignificant PC. An image-fusion targeted-biopsy-only approach maintains high detection for csPC and low detection of clinically insignificant cancers. PATIENT
SUMMARY: In this report, we found that following prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted transperineal biopsies of suspicious areas, the clinical value of performing additional extensive unguided biopsies of nonsuspicious areas is limited and can often find insignificant cancers that do not need treatment.
Copyright © 2019 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinically insignificant prostate cancer; Transperineal image fusion prostate biopsy

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31411968     DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2019.03.005

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


  10 in total

1.  Development of a novel nomogram to identify the candidate to extended pelvic lymph node dissection in patients who underwent mpMRI and target biopsy only.

Authors:  Cristian Fiori; Enrico Checcucci; Ilaria Stura; Daniele Amparore; Sabrina De Cillis; Alberto Piana; Stefano Granato; Gabriele Volpi; Michele Sica; Federico Piramide; Paolo Verri; Matteo Manfredi; Stefano De Luca; Riccardo Autorino; Giuseppe Migliaretti; Francesco Porpiglia
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2022-06-24       Impact factor: 5.554

Review 2.  Pooled outcomes of performing freehand transperineal prostate biopsy with the PrecisionPoint Transperineal Access System.

Authors:  Michael Tzeng; Spyridon P Basourakos; Hiten D Patel; Matthew J Allaway; Jim C Hu; Michael A Gorin
Journal:  BJUI Compass       Date:  2022-06-28

3.  Impact of delay from transperineal biopsy to radical prostatectomy upon objective measures of cancer control.

Authors:  Liang G Qu; Gregory Jack; Marlon Perera; Melanie Evans; Sue Evans; Damien Bolton; Nathan Papa
Journal:  Asian J Urol       Date:  2021-09-06

4.  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

Review 5.  Value of systematic sampling in an mp-MRI targeted prostate biopsy strategy.

Authors:  Martin J Connor; Saiful Miah; Rajiv Jayadevan; Christopher C Khoo; David Eldred-Evans; Taimur Shah; Hashim U Ahmed; Leonard Marks
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2020-06

6.  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

7.  Tissue expression of MMP-9, TIMP-1, RECK, and miR338-3p in prostate gland: can it predict cancer?

Authors:  Rodolfo Pacheco de Moraes; Ruan Pimenta; Fernando Noboru Cabral Mori; Gabriel Arantes Dos Santos; Nayara Izabel Viana; Vanessa Ribeiro Guimarães; Juliana Alves de Camargo; Katia Ramos Moreira Leite; Miguel Srougi; William Carlos Nahas; Sabrina T Reis
Journal:  Mol Biol Res Commun       Date:  2021-12

8.  Construction and Validation of a Clinical Predictive Nomogram for Improving the Cancer Detection of Prostate Naive Biopsy Based on Chinese Multicenter Clinical Data.

Authors:  Tao Tao; Changming Wang; Weiyong Liu; Lei Yuan; Qingyu Ge; Lang Zhang; Biming He; Lei Wang; Ling Wang; Caiping Xiang; Haifeng Wang; Shuqiu Chen; Jun Xiao
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-01-21       Impact factor: 6.244

9.  Magnetic resonance imaging /ultrasonography fusion transperineal prostate biopsy for prostate cancer: Initial experience at a Middle Eastern tertiary medical centre.

Authors:  Adnan El-Achkar; Mouhammad Al-Mousawy; Nassib Abou Heidar; Hisham Moukaddem; Hero Hussein; Nadim Mouallem; Albert El-Hajj; Muhammad Bulbul
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2021-07-14

Review 10.  Rethinking prostate cancer screening: could MRI be an alternative screening test?

Authors:  David Eldred-Evans; Henry Tam; Heminder Sokhi; Anwar R Padhani; Mathias Winkler; Hashim U Ahmed
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2020-07-21       Impact factor: 14.432

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.