Literature DB >> 33778681

In-Bore MRI-guided Prostate Biopsies: Retrospective Observational Study of Complementary Nontargeted Sampling of Normal-appearing Areas at Multiparametric MRI.

Kareem K Elfatairy1, Christopher P Filson1, Martin G Sanda1, Adeboye O Osunkoya1, Sherif G Nour1.   

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the pathologic outcomes of additional random biopsies from areas with no visible MR targets in the setting of targeted in-bore MRI-guided biopsy and to assess the negative predictive value (NPV) of areas with no visible MR targets stratified according to patients' different biopsy statuses. Materials and
Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent in-bore MRI-guided biopsy with additional random biopsies in areas with no visible MR targets (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System, version 2 category 1 or 2) was conducted in this study. Diagnostic scans and in-bore MRI-guided biopsy were performed with a 3-T MRI scanner. Areas with no visible MR targets were biopsied in a random fashion whenever a zone or side did not have a visible focal target. Clinically significant cancers (CSCs) were defined as a Gleason score of 7 or greater. NPVs were stratified based on patient's prior biopsy status. Descriptive analysis was performed.
Results: A total of 59 consecutive patients were included, with a median age of 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 59-71 years). The median prostate-specific antigen level was 7 ng/mL (IQR, 4.9-10.8 ng/mL). Of the 59 patients, 16 (27.1%) were biopsy naive, 24 (40.7%) had prior negative transrectal US-guided biopsy findings, and 19 (32.2%) had prior positive transrectal US-guided biopsy findings. Forty-two (71.2%) biopsies revealed prostate cancer. A total of 112 areas with no visible MR targets were biopsied, of which 20 (17.9%) were cancers and 11 (9.8%) were CSCs. The NPV of areas with no visible MR targets was approximately 78% for all cancers and was 88.1% for CSCs. NPVs in biopsy-naive patients, patients with prior negative transrectal US-guided biopsy findings, and patients with prior positive transrectal US-guided biopsy findings were 62.5%, 83.3%, and 84.2%, respectively, for all cancers and 75.0%, 91.7%, and 94.7%, respectively, for CSCs.
Conclusion: Areas with no visible MR targets in patients with MR-suspicious foci may still harbor CSCs that may significantly affect management plans. Additional biopsies from areas with no visible MR targets are warranted in this population.Keywords: Biopsy/Needle Aspiration, Interventional-Body, MR-Imaging, Prostate, Urinary© RSNA, 2019. 2019 by the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 33778681      PMCID: PMC7983770          DOI: 10.1148/rycan.2019190016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer        ISSN: 2638-616X


  16 in total

1.  The Efficacy of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy in Risk Classification for Patients with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance.

Authors:  Pedro Recabal; Melissa Assel; Daniel D Sjoberg; Daniel Lee; Vincent P Laudone; Karim Touijer; James A Eastham; Hebert A Vargas; Jonathan Coleman; Behfar Ehdaie
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-02-23       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  The Role of Ipsilateral and Contralateral Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Men With Unilateral Magnetic Resonance Imaging Lesion Undergoing Magnetic Resonance Imaging-ultrasound Fusion-targeted Prostate Biopsy.

Authors:  Darren J Bryk; Elton Llukani; Samir S Taneja; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; William C Huang; Herbert Lepor
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2016-11-18       Impact factor: 2.649

3.  PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2.

Authors:  Jeffrey C Weinreb; Jelle O Barentsz; Peter L Choyke; Francois Cornud; Masoom A Haider; Katarzyna J Macura; Daniel Margolis; Mitchell D Schnall; Faina Shtern; Clare M Tempany; Harriet C Thoeny; Sadna Verma
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-10-01       Impact factor: 20.096

4.  How accurate is multiparametric MR imaging in evaluation of prostate cancer volume?

Authors:  Flavie Bratan; Christelle Melodelima; Rémi Souchon; Au Hoang Dinh; Florence Mège-Lechevallier; Sébastien Crouzet; Marc Colombel; Albert Gelet; Olivier Rouvière
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-11-21       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging-guided In-bore and Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Prostate Biopsies: An Adjusted Comparison of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Detection Rate.

Authors:  Daniel N Costa; Kenneth Goldberg; Alberto Diaz de Leon; Yair Lotan; Yin Xi; Muhammad Aziz; Yuval Freifeld; Vitaly Margulis; Ganesh Raj; Claus G Roehrborn; Brad Hornberger; Neil Desai; Aditya Bagrodia; Franto Francis; Ivan Pedrosa; Jeffrey A Cadeddu
Journal:  Eur Urol Oncol       Date:  2018-09-20

Review 6.  Comparing Three Different Techniques for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsies: A Systematic Review of In-bore versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound fusion versus Cognitive Registration. Is There a Preferred Technique?

Authors:  Olivier Wegelin; Harm H E van Melick; Lotty Hooft; J L H Ruud Bosch; Hans B Reitsma; Jelle O Barentsz; Diederik M Somford
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2016-08-25       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 7.  Multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Baris Turkbey; Anna M Brown; Sandeep Sankineni; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2015-11-23       Impact factor: 508.702

8.  Predictive value of negative 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate on 12-core biopsy results.

Authors:  James S Wysock; Neil Mendhiratta; Fabio Zattoni; Xiaosong Meng; Marc Bjurlin; William C Huang; Herbert Lepor; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Samir S Taneja
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2016-02-25       Impact factor: 5.588

9.  Comparison of Multiparametric MRI Scoring Systems and the Impact on Cancer Detection in Patients Undergoing MR US Fusion Guided Prostate Biopsies.

Authors:  Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Nikhil Waingankar; Baris Turkbey; Oksana Yaskiv; Anna M Sonstegard; Mathew Fakhoury; Carl A Olsson; David N Siegel; Peter L Choyke; Eran Ben-Levi; Robert Villani
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-11-25       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  A critical comparison of techniques for MRI-targeted biopsy of the prostate.

Authors:  Francesco Giganti; Caroline M Moore
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2017-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.