Stephan Tschirdewahn1, Manuel Wiesenfarth2, David Bonekamp3, Lukas Püllen1, Henning Reis4, Andrej Panic1, Claudia Kesch1, Christopher Darr1, Jochen Heß1, Francesco Giganti5, Caroline M Moore6, Nika Guberina7, Michael Forsting7, Axel Wetter7, Boris Hadaschik1, Jan Philipp Radtke8. 1. Department of Urology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. 2. Division of Biostatistics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Institute of Pathology, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany. 5. Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK; Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK. 6. Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK; Department of Urology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 7. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. 8. Department of Urology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany. Electronic address: j.radtke@dkfz-heidelberg.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and targeted biopsies (TBs) facilitate accurate detection of significant prostate cancer (sPC). However, it remains unclear how many cores should be applied per target. OBJECTIVE: To assess sPC detection rates of two different target-dependent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-fusion biopsy approaches (TB and target saturation [TS]) compared with extended systematic biopsies (SBs). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective single-centre outcome of transperineal MRI/TRUS-fusion biopsies of 213 men was evaluated. All men underwent TB with a median of four cores per MRI lesion, followed by a median of 24 SBs, performed by experienced urologists. Cancer and sPC (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2) detection rates were analysed. TB was compared with SB and TS, with nine cores per target, calculated by the Ginsburg scheme and using individual cores of the lesion and its "penumbra". OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Cancer detection rates were calculated for TS, TB, and SB at both lesion and patient level. Combination of SB + TB served as a reference. Statistical differences in prostate cancer (PC) detection between groups were calculated using McNemar's tests with confidence intervals. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: TS detected 99% of 134 sPC lesions, which was significantly higher than the detection by TB (87%, p = 0.001) and SB (82%, p < 0.001). SB detected significantly more of the 72 low-risk PC lesions than TB (99% vs 68%, p < 0.001) and 10% (p = 0.15) more than that detected by TS. At a per-patient level, 99% of men harbouring sPC were detected by TS. This was significantly higher than that by TB and SB (89%, p = 0.03 and 81%, p = 0.001, respectively). Limitations include limited generalisability, as a transperineal biopsy route was used. CONCLUSIONS: TS detected significantly more cases of sPC than TB and extended SB. Given that both 99% of sPC lesions and men harbouring sPC were identified by TS, the results suggest that this approach allows to omit SB cores without compromising sPC detection. PATIENT SUMMARY: Target saturation of magnetic resonance imaging-suspicious prostate lesions provides excellent cancer detection and finds fewer low-risk tumours than the current gold standard combination of targeted and systematic biopsies.
BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and targeted biopsies (TBs) facilitate accurate detection of significant prostate cancer (sPC). However, it remains unclear how many cores should be applied per target. OBJECTIVE: To assess sPC detection rates of two different target-dependent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-fusion biopsy approaches (TB and target saturation [TS]) compared with extended systematic biopsies (SBs). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective single-centre outcome of transperineal MRI/TRUS-fusion biopsies of 213 men was evaluated. All men underwent TB with a median of four cores per MRI lesion, followed by a median of 24 SBs, performed by experienced urologists. Cancer and sPC (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2) detection rates were analysed. TB was compared with SB and TS, with nine cores per target, calculated by the Ginsburg scheme and using individual cores of the lesion and its "penumbra". OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Cancer detection rates were calculated for TS, TB, and SB at both lesion and patient level. Combination of SB + TB served as a reference. Statistical differences in prostate cancer (PC) detection between groups were calculated using McNemar's tests with confidence intervals. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: TS detected 99% of 134 sPC lesions, which was significantly higher than the detection by TB (87%, p = 0.001) and SB (82%, p < 0.001). SB detected significantly more of the 72 low-risk PC lesions than TB (99% vs 68%, p < 0.001) and 10% (p = 0.15) more than that detected by TS. At a per-patient level, 99% of men harbouring sPC were detected by TS. This was significantly higher than that by TB and SB (89%, p = 0.03 and 81%, p = 0.001, respectively). Limitations include limited generalisability, as a transperineal biopsy route was used. CONCLUSIONS: TS detected significantly more cases of sPC than TB and extended SB. Given that both 99% of sPC lesions and men harbouring sPC were identified by TS, the results suggest that this approach allows to omit SB cores without compromising sPC detection. PATIENT SUMMARY: Target saturation of magnetic resonance imaging-suspicious prostate lesions provides excellent cancer detection and finds fewer low-risk tumours than the current gold standard combination of targeted and systematic biopsies.
Authors: Dominik Deniffel; Nathan Perlis; Sangeet Ghai; Stephanie Girgis; Gerard M Healy; Neil Fleshner; Robert Hamilton; Girish Kulkarni; Ants Toi; Theodorus van der Kwast; Alexandre Zlotta; Antonio Finelli; Masoom A Haider Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-05-04 Impact factor: 7.034
Authors: Alex G Raman; Karthik V Sarma; Steven S Raman; Alan M Priester; Sohrab Afshari Mirak; Hannah H Riskin-Jones; Nikhil Dhinagar; William Speier; Ely Felker; Anthony E Sisk; David Lu; Adam Kinnaird; Robert E Reiter; Leonard S Marks; Corey W Arnold Journal: J Urol Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 7.600
Authors: Magdalena Görtz; Joanne Nyaboe Nyarangi-Dix; Lars Pursche; Viktoria Schütz; Philipp Reimold; Constantin Schwab; Albrecht Stenzinger; Holger Sültmann; Stefan Duensing; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; David Bonekamp; Markus Hohenfellner; Jan Philipp Radtke Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-02-10 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Marinus J Hagens; Mar Fernandez Salamanca; Anwar R Padhani; Pim J van Leeuwen; Henk G van der Poel; Ivo G Schoots Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2022-05-02
Authors: Alex Z Wang; Luke P O’Conno; Nitin K Yerram; Lori Long; Johnathan Zeng; Sherif Mehralivand; Stephanie A Harmon; Amir H Lebastchi; Michael Ahdoot; Patrick T Gomella; Sandeep Gurram; Peter L Choyke; Maria J Merino; Joanna H Shih; Bradford J Wood; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2020-07-27 Impact factor: 7.450
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