Jakob Schlegel1, Stefan Hinz1,2, Karsten Günzel3,4, Ahmed Magheli1, Jonas Busch1, Eduard Baco5, Hannes Cash1,2, Stefan Heinrich1, Daniela Edler1, Martin Schostak2, Hendrik Borgmann6. 1. Department of Urology, Vivantes Klinikum Am Urban, Dieffenbachstraße 1, 10967, Berlin, Germany. 2. Department of Urology, Universitätsklinikum Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany. 3. Department of Urology, Vivantes Klinikum Am Urban, Dieffenbachstraße 1, 10967, Berlin, Germany. Karsten.guenzel@googlemail.com. 4. University Hospital Medical School Brandenburg, Brandenburg, Germany. Karsten.guenzel@googlemail.com. 5. Department of Urology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 6. University Hospital Medical School Brandenburg, Brandenburg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the additional value of systematic biopsies (SB) when performing transperineal MRI/TRUS fusion biopsies (MRI/TRUS TPBx) with needle tracking. METHODS: From January 2019 to March 2021 969 Patients after a MRI/TRUS TPBx were evaluated separately for target biopsies (TB) and systematic biopsies regarding PCa detection and PCa risk evaluation. Needle tracking in the axial sequences of multiparametric MRI was used to assess the localisation of the detected PCa in the biopsy cores related to the reported PI-RADS lesions. RESULTS: The overall cancer detection rate (CDR) for PCa and clinically significant (cs) PCa (ISUP ≥2) with the combination of TB and SB were 66 and 49%. TB detected 46% csPCa and SB 22% csPCa. SB identified 1.5% additional csPCa outside of the reported PI-RADS lesions. 16 patients (1.7%) showed a relevant upgrading from clinically insignificant PCa in TB to csPCa. In 736 patients with unilateral suspicious lesions on MRI, 145 patients (20%) were detected with contralateral PCa-positive SB. 238 patients (25%) showed PCa positive systematic biopsy cores outside of the described PI-RADS lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Needle tracking optimizes the 3D-localisation of cancer in the prostate. Our results show that the added value of SB with a reduced systematic biopsy scheme is low with regard to prostate cancer (PCa) detection and PCa risk evaluation. However, there is a relevant added value for localizing multifocal PCa in the primary diagnostic by a MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy of the prostate.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the additional value of systematic biopsies (SB) when performing transperineal MRI/TRUS fusion biopsies (MRI/TRUS TPBx) with needle tracking. METHODS: From January 2019 to March 2021 969 Patients after a MRI/TRUS TPBx were evaluated separately for target biopsies (TB) and systematic biopsies regarding PCa detection and PCa risk evaluation. Needle tracking in the axial sequences of multiparametric MRI was used to assess the localisation of the detected PCa in the biopsy cores related to the reported PI-RADS lesions. RESULTS: The overall cancer detection rate (CDR) for PCa and clinically significant (cs) PCa (ISUP ≥2) with the combination of TB and SB were 66 and 49%. TB detected 46% csPCa and SB 22% csPCa. SB identified 1.5% additional csPCa outside of the reported PI-RADS lesions. 16 patients (1.7%) showed a relevant upgrading from clinically insignificant PCa in TB to csPCa. In 736 patients with unilateral suspicious lesions on MRI, 145 patients (20%) were detected with contralateral PCa-positive SB. 238 patients (25%) showed PCa positive systematic biopsy cores outside of the described PI-RADS lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Needle tracking optimizes the 3D-localisation of cancer in the prostate. Our results show that the added value of SB with a reduced systematic biopsy scheme is low with regard to prostate cancer (PCa) detection and PCa risk evaluation. However, there is a relevant added value for localizing multifocal PCa in the primary diagnostic by a MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy of the prostate.
Authors: T Ullrich; M Quentin; C Oelers; F Dietzel; L M Sawicki; C Arsov; R Rabenalt; P Albers; G Antoch; D Blondin; H J Wittsack; L Schimmöller Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2017-03-04 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Marloes van der Leest; Erik Cornel; Bas Israël; Rianne Hendriks; Anwar R Padhani; Martijn Hoogenboom; Patrik Zamecnik; Dirk Bakker; Anglita Yanti Setiasti; Jeroen Veltman; Huib van den Hout; Hans van der Lelij; Inge van Oort; Sjoerd Klaver; Frans Debruyne; Michiel Sedelaar; Gerjon Hannink; Maroeska Rovers; Christina Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-11-23 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Hashim U Ahmed; Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily; Louise C Brown; Rhian Gabe; Richard Kaplan; Mahesh K Parmar; Yolanda Collaco-Moraes; Katie Ward; Richard G Hindley; Alex Freeman; Alex P Kirkham; Robert Oldroyd; Chris Parker; Mark Emberton Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: K Günzel; A Magheli; E Baco; H Cash; S Heinrich; H Neubert; J Schlegel; M Schostak; T Henkel; P Asbach; S Hinz Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-04-18 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Fuad F Elkhoury; Ely R Felker; Lorna Kwan; Anthony E Sisk; Merdie Delfin; Shyam Natarajan; Leonard S Marks Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 16.681
Authors: Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Antti S Rannikko; Marcelo Borghi; Valeria Panebianco; Lance A Mynderse; Markku H Vaarala; Alberto Briganti; Lars Budäus; Giles Hellawell; Richard G Hindley; Monique J Roobol; Scott Eggener; Maneesh Ghei; Arnauld Villers; Franck Bladou; Geert M Villeirs; Jaspal Virdi; Silvan Boxler; Grégoire Robert; Paras B Singh; Wulphert Venderink; Boris A Hadaschik; Alain Ruffion; Jim C Hu; Daniel Margolis; Sébastien Crouzet; Laurence Klotz; Samir S Taneja; Peter Pinto; Inderbir Gill; Clare Allen; Francesco Giganti; Alex Freeman; Stephen Morris; Shonit Punwani; Norman R Williams; Chris Brew-Graves; Jonathan Deeks; Yemisi Takwoingi; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-03-18 Impact factor: 176.079