RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-ultrasound fusion targeted prostate biopsy (FB) has been advocated by many experts as a replacement for the standard template biopsy. Herein, we compared pathology results and cancer detection rates of FB with our standard 14-core systematic prostate biopsy (SB) that includes 2 anterior cores. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred two men with elevated prostate-specific antigen and suspicious lesions on multiparametric MRI, Prostate Imaging Reporting And Data System (PI-RADS) v2 score ≥ 3, underwent FB. Each target lesion was biopsied 3 times; our SB was performed concurrently. Biopsy results were compared for overall and clinically significant (cs), defined as Gleason score ≥ 7, cancer detection. RESULTS: Fifty-two percent of patients had positive biopsy results, and of those, 44 had cs prostate cancer (PCa). The overall detection rates for FB and SB were 39% and 50%, respectively, and there was no statistical difference in the detection rate of csPCa detection rate (P = .42). Of 17 patients diagnosed with a high-risk PCa, defined as Gleason score ≥ 8, SB identified 15, whereas FB identified 10. Within the SB group, 21 had positive anterior core biopsies, of which 11 were cs. CONCLUSION: Expanding the standard template prostate biopsies to include 2 anterior horn sampling may be just as effective as FB in men with PI-RADS lesion ≥ 3, thereby mitigating the increased cost associated with FB.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Introduction: There are reports that the 12-core template systematic biopsies (SBx) obtained by using software registration machines (e.g., Artemis) have higher cancer detection rates (CDRs) of prostate cancer (PCa) than the standard, freehand 12-core transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies. The goal of our study is to compare the clinically significant (CS) CDRs of SBx in two independent cohorts who underwent freehand TRUS-SBx alone (Cohort A) or machine-guided SBx as part of a combined MRI-ultrasound (MRI-US) fusion biopsy (FBx) (Cohort B). Materials and Methods: A retrospective review of all patients undergoing prostate biopsies over a 4-year period at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center was performed. CS cancer was defined as having a Gleason score ≥7. MRI-US FBx were obtained by using an Artemis software registration device (ARTEMIS™, Eigen, Inc., Grass Valley, CA). Statistical significance was considered at p < 0.05. Results: Nine hundred and thirty men underwent SBx (Cohort A: 474, Cohort B: 456). There were no statistical differences between cohort A and B in CS CDRs in the overall population (39.3% vs 33.8%; p = 0.093), biopsy naive patients (40.4% vs 39.8%; p = 0.951), or patients with a prior negative biopsy (22.7% vs 25.0%; p = 0.910). Multivariate logistic regression controlling for age, race, prostate-specific antigen level, prostate volume, abnormal digital rectal exam, and family history of PCa demonstrated comparable CS CDRs, which was maintained when further stratified by prior biopsy history (all patients: odds ratio [OR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-1.38, p = 0.958; biopsy naive: OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.51-1.22, p = 0.291; prior negative biopsy: OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.21-1.75, p = 0.403). Conclusions: Our study did not find a significant difference in the CS CDRs of machine-guided SBx compared with the freehand TRUS-SBx. Unless the SBx is done at the time of FBx, the use of these machines for obtaining SBx only is unlikely to result in any increase of CS CDRs.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

There is growing evidence that MRI-ultrasound (MR-US)-targeted biopsy (TB) has high detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) compared to standard transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy. A radiologist plays a significant role in MR-US fusion biopsy planning. Here, we discuss six simple steps that can help set up a successful MR-US fusion biopsy program in collaboration with the urologist.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of mp-MRI correlating US/mp-MRI fusion-guided biopsy with systematic random US-guided biopsy in prostate cancer diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 137 suspected prostatic abnormalities were identified on mp-MRI (1.5T) in 96 patients and classified according to PI-RADS score v2. All target lesions underwent US/mp-MRI fusion biopsy and prostatic sampling was completed by US-guided systematic random 12-core biopsies. Histological analysis and Gleason score were established for all the samples, both target lesions defined by mp-MRI, and random biopsies. PI-RADS score was correlated with the histological results, divided in three groups (benign tissue, atypia and carcinoma) and with Gleason groups, divided in four categories considering the new Grading system of the ISUP 2014, using t test. Multivariate analysis was used to correlate PI-RADS and Gleason categories to PSA level and abnormalities axial diameter. When the random core biopsies showed carcinoma (mp-MRI false-negatives), PSA value and lesions Gleason median value were compared with those of carcinomas identified by mp-MRI (true-positives), using t test. RESULTS: There was statistically significant difference between PI-RADS score in carcinoma, atypia and benign lesions groups (4.41, 3.61 and 3.24, respectively) and between PI-RADS score in Gleason < 7 group and Gleason > 7 group (4.14 and 4.79, respectively). mp-MRI performance was more accurate for lesions > 15 mm and in patients with PSA > 6 ng/ml. In systematic sampling, 130 (11.25%) mp-MRI false-negative were identified. There was no statistic difference in Gleason median value (7.0 vs 7.06) between this group and the mp-MRI true-positives, but a significant lower PSA median value was demonstrated (7.08 vs 7.53 ng/ml). CONCLUSION: mp-MRI remains the imaging modality of choice to identify PCa lesions. Integrating US-guided random sampling with US/mp-MRI fusion target lesions sampling, 3.49% of false-negative were identified.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: This study compared the detection rates for clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPC) between magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography (MRI/US)-fusion-targeted biopsy (TB), systematic biopsy (SB) and combination of TB and SB. METHODS: This prospective study evaluated simultaneous TB and SB for consecutive patients with suspicious lesions that were detected using pre-biopsy multiparametric MRI. A commercially available real-time virtual sonography system was used to perform the MRI/US-fusion TB with the transperineal technique. The prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 (PI-RADS v2) was assigned to categorize the suspicious lesions. RESULTS: A total of 177 patients were included in this study. The detection rate for CSPC was higher using SB, compared to TB (57.1% vs 48.0%, p = 0.0886). The detection rate for CSPC was higher using the combination of TB and SB, compared to only SB (63.3% vs 57.1%, p = 0.2324). Multivariate analysis revealed that PIRADS v2 category 4 and an age of <65 years were independent predictors for TB upgrading (vs. the SB result). CONCLUSIONS: PI-RADS v2 category 4 and an age of <65 years were predictive factors of upgrading the Gleason score by MRI/US-fusion TB. Thus, MRI/US-fusion TB may be appropriate for patients with those characteristics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was retrospectively registered at the University Hospital Medical Information Network ( UMINID000025911 ) in Jan 30, 2017.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: To explore the diagnostic benefit of an additional image fusion of the sagittal plane in addition to the standard axial image fusion, using a sensor-based MRI/US fusion platform. METHODS: During July 2013 and September 2015, 251 patients with at least one suspicious lesion on mpMRI (rated by PI-RADS) were included into the analysis. All patients underwent MRI/US targeted biopsy (TB) in combination with a 10 core systematic prostate biopsy (SB). All biopsies were performed on a sensor-based fusion system. Group A included 162 men who received TB by an axial MRI/US image fusion. Group B comprised 89 men in whom the TB was performed with an additional sagittal image fusion. RESULTS: The median age in group A was 67 years (IQR 61-72) and in group B 68 years (IQR 60-71). The median PSA level in group A was 8.10 ng/ml (IQR 6.05-14) and in group B 8.59 ng/ml (IQR 5.65-12.32). In group A the proportion of patients with a suspicious digital rectal examination (DRE) (14 vs. 29%, p = 0.007) and the proportion of primary biopsies (33 vs 46%, p = 0.046) were significantly lower. The rate of PI-RADS 3 lesions were overrepresented in group A compared to group B (19 vs. 9%; p = 0.044). Classified according to PI-RADS 3, 4 and 5, the detection rates of TB were 42, 48, 75% in group A and 25, 74, 90% in group B. The rate of PCa with a Gleason score ≥7 missed by TB was 33% (18 cases) in group A and 9% (5 cases) in group B; p-value 0.072. An explorative multivariate binary logistic regression analysis revealed that PI-RADS, a suspicious DRE and performing an additional sagittal image fusion were significant predictors for PCa detection in TB. 9 PCa were only detected by TB with sagittal fusion (sTB) and sTB identified 10 additional clinically significant PCa (Gleason ≥7). CONCLUSION: Performing an additional sagittal image fusion besides the standard axial fusion appears to improve the accuracy of the sensor-based MRI/US fusion platform.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Reaching a histologic diagnosis of prostatic cancer (CaP) is central to its treatment and outcome. Preoperative transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsies miss 25-40% of higher grade CaP found in post prostatectomy specimen. MRI-US fusion biopsy technique is a technological advance with software based integration of prior MRI images and real time TRUS to improvise the prostatic biopsy yield. On combining systematic biopsies with targeted ones, along with MRI detected high risk CaP areas, 22% more low risk CaP were found. Hence, fusion biopsy leads to better detection of "clinically relevant" CaP. In certain groups of patients like elevated PSA with negative biopsies and those on active surveillance (AS), this fusion technique would make a difference in management.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To examine the value of additional transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided random biopsy (RB) in patients with negative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasonography (US) fusion-guided targeted biopsy (TB) and to identify possible reasons for TB failure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a subgroup analysis of 61 men with prostate cancer (PCa) detected by 10-core RB but with a negative TB, from a cohort of 408 men with suspicious multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) between January 2012 and January 2015. A consensus re-reading of mpMRI results (using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] versions 1 and 2) for each suspicious lesion was performed, with the image reader blinded to the biopsy results, followed by an unblinded anatomical correlation of the lesion on mpMRI to the biopsy result. The potential reasons for TB failure were estimated for each lesion. We defined clinically significant PCa according to the Epstein criteria and stratified patients into risk groups according to the European Association of Urology guidelines. RESULTS: Our analysis showed that RB detected significant PCa in 64% of patients (39/61) and intermediate-/high-risk PCa in 57% of patients (35/61). The initial mpMRI reading identified 90 suspicious lesions in the cohort. Blinded consensus re-reading of the mpMRI led to PI-RADS score downgrading of 45 lesions (50%) and upgrading of 13 lesions (14%); thus, negative TB could be explained by falsely high initial PI-RADS scores for 32 lesions (34%) and sampling of the target lesion by RB in the corresponding anatomical site for 36 out of 90 lesions (40%) in 35 of 61 patients (57%). Sampling of the target lesion by RB was most likely for lesions with PI-RADS scores of 4/5 and Gleason scores (GS) of ≥7. A total of 70 PCa lesions (67% with GS 6) in 44 patients (72%) were sampled from prostatic sites with no abnormalities on mpMRI. CONCLUSION: In cases of TB failure, RB still detected a high rate of significant PCa. The main reason for a negative TB was a TB error, compensated for by positive sampling of the target lesion by the additional RB, and the second reason for TB failure was a falsely high initial PI-RADS score. The challenges that arise for both MRI diagnostics and prostate lesion sampling are evident in our data and support the integration of RB into the TB workflow.

Asunto(s)