Literature DB >> 31791623

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: What Urologists Need to Know. Part 3: Targeted Biopsy.

Wulphert Venderink1, Joyce G Bomers1, Christiaan G Overduin1, Anwar R Padhani2, Gijs R de Lauw1, Michiel J Sedelaar1, Jelle O Barentsz3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: After a lesion has been assessed adequately on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), magnetic resonance (MR)-guided biopsy (MRGB) is the logical next step. The choice of the MRGB technique, however, is difficult.
OBJECTIVE: To show the advantages and disadvantages of the three commonly used MRGB techniques-MRI-ultrasound fusion MRGB (fus-MRGB), direct in-bore MRGB (inbore-MRGB), and cognitive MRGB (cog-MRGB), and to determine when each of the techniques can be used. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Based on expert opinion and literature overview, the advantages, disadvantages, and challenges of fus-MRGB, inbore-MRGB, and cog-MRGB are evaluated. Further, the clinical setting of each biopsy strategy is assessed. SURGICAL PROCEDURE: Based on expert opinion and literature data, the three biopsy procedures are evaluated, and the important pros and cons are determined. MEASUREMENTS: The basic concept of each biopsy technique is reviewed, which would result in a clinical recommendation. This will be shown in individual patients. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The accompanying video shows how fus-MRGB and inbore-MRGB are performed in our hospital. An important advantage of fus-MRGB is its generally availability; however, it has fusion-error limitations. Although not supported by evidence, inbore-MRGB seems to be better suited for smaller lesions, but is rather expensive. Cog-MRGB is easy to use and inexpensive, but is more operator dependent as it requires knowledge about both ultrasound and MR images. Readers should be aware that our MRGB approach is largely based on expert opinion and, where possible, supported by evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: This article and the accompanying video show different MRGB techniques. The advantages and disadvantages of the three biopsy techniques, as well as the clinical setting in which each biopsy strategy is being used in our hospital, are discussed. Fus-MRGB is our first choice for prostate biopsy. Direct inbore-MRGB is used in difficult lesions but is mainly used as a "problem solver" (eg, a negative biopsy with a high suspicion for clinically significant prostate cancer). In our opinion, cog-MRGB is best for sampling larger and diffuse lesions. PATIENT
SUMMARY: This third surgery in motion contribution shows our approach in magnetic resonance (MR)-guided biopsy (MRGB). Fusion MRGB is our first choice for prostate biopsy. In-bore MRGB is used in selected, difficult cases, mainly as a problem solver. In our point of view, cognitive MRGB seems to be best for sampling larger lesions and diffuse processes.
Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Magnetic resonance–guided biopsy; Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging; Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System; Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2; Prostate biopsy; Prostate cancer

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31791623     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.10.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  11 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

2.  A multifaceted approach to quality in the MRI-directed biopsy pathway for prostate cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Anwar R Padhani; Ivo G Schoots; Baris Turkbey; Gianluca Giannarini; Jelle O Barentsz
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-11-25       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 3.  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

4.  Prostate cancer: diagnostic yield of modified transrectal ultrasound-guided twelve-core combined biopsy (targeted plus systematic biopsies) using prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Chorog Song; Sung Yoon Park
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2021-06-28

5.  Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System: Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance between Version 2.0 and 2.1 for Prostatic Peripheral Zone.

Authors:  Hyun Soo Kim; Ghee Young Kwon; Min Je Kim; Sung Yoon Park
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2021-04-09       Impact factor: 3.500

6.  Prediction of prostate cancer grade using fractal analysis of perfusion MRI: retrospective proof-of-principle study.

Authors:  Florian Michallek; Henkjan Huisman; Bernd Hamm; Sefer Elezkurtaj; Andreas Maxeiner; Marc Dewey
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-12-16       Impact factor: 7.034

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.  Accuracy of fractal analysis and PI-RADS assessment of prostate magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of cancer grade groups: a clinical validation study.

Authors:  Andreas Maxeiner; Marc Dewey; Florian Michallek; Henkjan Huisman; Bernd Hamm; Sefer Elezkurtaj
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-12-18       Impact factor: 7.034

9.  A preliminary study of micro-RNAs as minimally invasive biomarkers for the diagnosis of prostate cancer patients.

Authors:  Simona Giglio; Cosimo De Nunzio; Roberto Cirombella; Antonella Stoppacciaro; Omar Faruq; Stefano Volinia; Gustavo Baldassarre; Andrea Tubaro; Hideshi Ishii; Carlo M Croce; Andrea Vecchione
Journal:  J Exp Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2021-02-23

10.  Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection with various prostate sampling schemes based on different csPCa definitions.

Authors:  Fei Wang; Tong Chen; Meng Wang; Hanbing Chen; Caishan Wang; Peiqing Liu; Songtao Liu; Jing Luo; Qi Ma; Lijun Xu
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2021-12-23       Impact factor: 2.264

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.