Literature DB >> 31762182

A cohort of transperineal electromagnetically tracked magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion-guided biopsy: assessing the impact of inter-reader variability on cancer detection.

Ethan Wajswol1, Jared S Winoker1, Harry Anastos1, Ugo Falagario1, Kennedy Okhawere1, Alberto Martini1, Patrick-Julien Treacy1, Nicholas Voutsinas2, Cynthia J Knauer1, John P Sfakianos1, Sara C Lewis2, Bachir A Taouli2, Ardeshir R Rastinehad1,2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability to detect clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) using a novel electromagnetically (EM) tracked transperineal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasonography (US) fusion-guided targeted biopsy (transperineal TBx) platform and the impact of inter-reader variability on cancer detection.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 176 patients with suspicious lesions detected on multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) underwent a systematic modified Barzel template biopsy (12-core) transperineal biopsy (transperineal SBx) and transperineal TBx with EM tracking (UroNav; Philips Healthcare, Best, the Netherlands) in the same setting. Cancer detection rates (CDRs) were stratified by Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2 scores and compared with Fisher's exact test. Area under the curve (AUC) was calculated for prostate-specific antigen (PSA), PSA density (PSAD), PI-RADS score, and subgroup analysis of individual readers' PI-RADS scores with respect to overall CDR and clinically significant CDR.
RESULTS: The overall CDR was 76.7% (135/176), of which 76.3% (103/135) was clinically significant PCa. Among the 135 patients with PCa, transperineal TBx detected 90.4% of cases (122/135), either alone or in combination with transperineal SBx. The remaining 9.6% of cases (13/135) missed by transperineal TBx were diagnosed by transperineal SBx alone, of which three were clinically significant. Conversely, transperineal SBx missed 14% of cases (19/135), 14 of which were clinically significant PCa. Sensitivities for transperineal TBx and transperineal SBx were 90.4% and 85.9%, respectively. On a per-lesion basis, PI-RADS score (AUC 0.74) outperformed both PSA (AUC 0.59) and PSAD (AUC 0.63) in discriminating clinically significant from non-clinically significant PCa on transperineal TBx. Although not formally statistically tested, AUCs amongst different mpMRI readers appeared to display considerable variability. There were no adverse events, including sepsis.
CONCLUSIONS: Electromagnetically tracked transperineal TBx of MRI-visible lesions enhanced the ability of transperineal SBx to detect PCa, with greater sensitivity for clinically significant disease. These findings suggest transperineal TBx is a safe, alternative fusion platform for patients with a suspicious lesion on prostate MRI. The assessment of inter-reader variability, in conjunction with prediction of clinically significant PCa and CDR, is an important first step for quality control in implementing an MRI-based screening programme.
© 2019 The Authors BJU International © 2019 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  early detection of cancer; multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging; prostate cancer; prostate cancer imaging; targeted prostate biopsy

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31762182     DOI: 10.1111/bju.14957

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


  14 in total

1.  The Mount Sinai Prebiopsy Risk Calculator for Predicting any Prostate Cancer and Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Development of a Risk Predictive Tool and Validation with Advanced Neural Networking, Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Outcome Database, and European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator.

Authors:  Sneha Parekh; Parita Ratnani; Ugo Falagario; Dara Lundon; Deepshikha Kewlani; Jordan Nasri; Zach Dovey; Dimitrios Stroumbakis; Daniel Ranti; Ralph Grauer; Stanislaw Sobotka; Adriana Pedraza; Vinayak Wagaskar; Lajja Mistry; Ivan Jambor; Anna Lantz; Otto Ettala; Armando Stabile; Pekka Taimen; Hannu J Aronen; Juha Knaapila; Ileana Montoya Perez; Giorgio Gandaglia; Alberto Martini; Wolfgang Picker; Erik Haug; Luigi Cormio; Tobias Nordström; Alberto Briganti; Peter J Boström; Giuseppe Carrieri; Kenneth Haines; Michael A Gorin; Peter Wiklund; Mani Menon; Ash Tewari
Journal:  Eur Urol Open Sci       Date:  2022-05-20

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.  MRI Screening and MRI/US Fusion-Guided Transperineal Biopsy in Detecting Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Hongqing Yin; Jun Shao; Huan Song; Wei Ding; Bin Xu; Hui Cao; Jianming Wang
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021 Jan-Dec

4.  Multivariable Models Incorporating Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Efficiently Predict Results of Prostate Biopsy and Reduce Unnecessary Biopsy.

Authors:  Shuanbao Yu; Guodong Hong; Jin Tao; Yan Shen; Junxiao Liu; Biao Dong; Yafeng Fan; Ziyao Li; Ali Zhu; Xuepei Zhang
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2020-11-11       Impact factor: 6.244

5.  Does Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance of Prostate Outperform Risk Calculators in Predicting Prostate Cancer in Biopsy Naïve Patients?

Authors:  Ugo Giovanni Falagario; Giovanni Silecchia; Salvatore Mariano Bruno; Michele Di Nauta; Mario Auciello; Francesca Sanguedolce; Paola Milillo; Luca Macarini; Oscar Selvaggio; Giuseppe Carrieri; Luigi Cormio
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-01-08       Impact factor: 6.244

6.  Combining prostate health index and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in estimating the histological diameter of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Po-Fan Hsieh; Tzung-Ruei Li; Wei-Ching Lin; Han Chang; Chi-Ping Huang; Chao-Hsiang Chang; Chi-Rei Yang; Chin-Chung Yeh; Wen-Chin Huang; Hsi-Chin Wu
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2021-11-20       Impact factor: 2.264

7.  Bioptic prostatic inflammation correlates with false positive rates of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Ugo Giovanni Falagario; Marco Recchia; Giovanni Silecchia; Paola Milillo; Alessia Francavilla; Salvatore Mariano Bruno; Oscar Selvaggio; Gian Maria Busetto; Francesca Sanguedolce; Luca Macarini; Giuseppe Carrieri; Luigi Cormio
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2021-07-07

8.  Analysis of the usefulness of magnetic resonance imaging and clinical parameters in the detection of prostate cancer in the first systematic biopsy combined with targeted cognitive biopsy.

Authors:  Natalia Majchrzak; Piotr Cieśliński; Tomasz Milecki; Krzysztof Twardosz; Maciej Głyda; Katarzyna Karmelita-Katulska
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2021-07-07

9.  Development and Validation of a Radiomics Nomogram for Predicting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in PI-RADS 3 Lesions.

Authors:  Tianping Li; Linna Sun; Qinghe Li; Xunrong Luo; Mingfang Luo; Haizhu Xie; Peiyuan Wang
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-01-26       Impact factor: 6.244

10.  Monoprophylaxis With Cephalosporins for Transrectal Prostate Biopsy After the Fluoroquinolone-Era: A Multi-Institutional Comparison of Severe Infectious Complications.

Authors:  Mike Wenzel; Jost von Hardenberg; Maria N Welte; Samuel Doryumu; Benedikt Hoeh; Clarissa Wittler; Thomas Höfner; Maximilian C Kriegmair; Maurice S Michel; Felix Kh Chun; Jonas Herrmann; Philipp Mandel; Niklas Westhoff
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-06-10       Impact factor: 6.244

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.