Joan C Vilanova1,2,3, Anna Pérez de Tudela4, Josep Puig5, Martijn Hoogenboom6, Joaquim Barceló4,5,7, Montse Planas4, Sònia Sala4, Santiago Thió-Henestrosa8. 1. Department of Magnetic Resonance, Clinica Girona, 17002, Girona, Spain. kvilanova@comg.cat. 2. Research Unit of Diagnostic Imaging Institute (IDI), Department of Radiology, Girona Biomedical Research Institute, IDIBGI, Hospital Universitari Dr. Josep Trueta, 17007, Girona, Spain. kvilanova@comg.cat. 3. Department of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Girona, 17003, Girona, Spain. kvilanova@comg.cat. 4. Department of Magnetic Resonance, Clinica Girona, 17002, Girona, Spain. 5. Research Unit of Diagnostic Imaging Institute (IDI), Department of Radiology, Girona Biomedical Research Institute, IDIBGI, Hospital Universitari Dr. Josep Trueta, 17007, Girona, Spain. 6. Soteria Medical, Arnhem, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Girona, 17003, Girona, Spain. 8. Department of Computer Science, Applied Mathematics and Statistics, University of Girona, 17003, Girona, Spain.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the potential clinical and technical utility to manage in practice the use of a robotic MRI in-bore-targeted prostate biopsies in the current work-up of prostate cancer diagnosis. METHODS: Thirty patients with a single cancer suspicious lesion interpreted on MRI using PI-RADSv2.1 category ≥ 3 underwent in-bore robotic transrectal MRI remote-controlled-guided biopsy. It was analyzed the technical success, clinical details, biopsy findings in correlation with the MRI examination, complications and cancer detection rate (CDR). RESULTS: The overall CDR for any cancer was 73% (22/30). It was 86% (19/22) for significant tumors (Gleason score of more than 6 or maximum cancer core length greater than 3 mm for Gleason 6) and 77% (17/22) for tumors with Gleason > 6. CDR for biopsy-naïve patients was 89% (16/18) and 50% (6/12) for patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies. The CDR for PI-RADS > 3 was 92% (22/24). All the lesions (n = 30) were reachable with the robotic MRI device. A self-limited rectal hemorrhagic complication was reported. CONCLUSION: This initial data show that a robotic MRI-guided biopsy could be useful, efficient and feasible procedure in the new paradigm to diagnose significant prostate cancer in selected patients.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the potential clinical and technical utility to manage in practice the use of a robotic MRI in-bore-targeted prostate biopsies in the current work-up of prostate cancer diagnosis. METHODS: Thirty patients with a single cancer suspicious lesion interpreted on MRI using PI-RADSv2.1 category ≥ 3 underwent in-bore robotic transrectal MRI remote-controlled-guided biopsy. It was analyzed the technical success, clinical details, biopsy findings in correlation with the MRI examination, complications and cancer detection rate (CDR). RESULTS: The overall CDR for any cancer was 73% (22/30). It was 86% (19/22) for significant tumors (Gleason score of more than 6 or maximum cancer core length greater than 3 mm for Gleason 6) and 77% (17/22) for tumors with Gleason > 6. CDR for biopsy-naïve patients was 89% (16/18) and 50% (6/12) for patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies. The CDR for PI-RADS > 3 was 92% (22/24). All the lesions (n = 30) were reachable with the robotic MRI device. A self-limited rectal hemorrhagic complication was reported. CONCLUSION: This initial data show that a robotic MRI-guided biopsy could be useful, efficient and feasible procedure in the new paradigm to diagnose significant prostate cancer in selected patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biopsy; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostate cancer; Robotics
Authors: Nicolas Linder; Alexander Schaudinn; Tim-Ole Petersen; Nikolaos Bailis; Patrick Stumpp; Lars-Christian Horn; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Thomas Kahn; Michael Moche; Harald Busse Journal: MAGMA Date: 2019-05-09 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Olivier Wegelin; Leonie Exterkate; Marloes van der Leest; Jean A Kummer; Willem Vreuls; Peter C de Bruin; J L H Ruud Bosch; Jelle O Barentsz; Diederik M Somford; Harm H E van Melick Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-12-03 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Hashim Uddin Ahmed; Yipeng Hu; Tim Carter; Nimalan Arumainayagam; Emilie Lecornet; Alex Freeman; David Hawkes; Dean C Barratt; Mark Emberton Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-06-15 Impact factor: 7.450