Clinical feasibility of MRI-guided in-bore prostate biopsies at 0.55T

被引:1
|
作者
Kaur, Tejinder [1 ]
Jiang, Yun [1 ]
Seiberlich, Nicole [1 ]
Hussain, Hero [1 ]
Wells, Shane [1 ]
Wei, John [1 ]
Caoili, Elaine [1 ]
Gulani, Vikas [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
关键词
Prostate biopsy; MRI; Prostate cancer; Transrectal; Percutaneous; In-bore; ULTRASOUND FUSION; STRATEGIES; CANCER;
D O I
10.1007/s00261-024-04783-x
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
ObjectiveIn-bore MRI-guided biopsy allows direct visualization of suspicious lesions, biopsy needles, and trajectories, allowing accurate sampling when MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy is not feasible. However, its use has been limited. Wide-bore, lower-field, and lower-cost scanners could help address these issues, but their feasibility for prostate biopsy is unknown. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the feasibility of in-bore MRI-guided prostate biopsy using a large-bore (80 cm), 0.55T scanner.Materials and methodsNineteen participants (68 +/- 10 years) with suspected prostate cancer (PCa) were recruited for this Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved study (May 2023 -October 2024). Prebiopsy diagnostic scans and intra-procedural T2-weighted images were used for lesion localization. PSA levels, lesion sizes, cancer detection rates, positive core volume percentage, ISUP (International Society of Urological Pathology) grade groups (GG), positive volume cores, skin to target distances, and procedure durations were reported.ResultsSeventeen participants underwent biopsies (four transrectal, thirteen percutaneous). Two participants were excluded. Twenty lesions (mean size 1.9 +/- 1.2 cm) were biopsied which showed various GG cancers (GG1, GG2, GG3, GG4, and GG5), with positive cores ranging from 10 to 100%. 20% of the lesions were benign. Compared to previous biopsies, 22.2% (2/9) had new cancer detections, 22.2% (2/9) showed a GG upgrade, and 33.3% (3/9) had increased positive core volume, while 11.1% (1/9) showed no upgrade and 11.1% (1/9) had benign findings. Among biopsy-na & iuml;ve participants, 75% (6/8) had cancer detected, and 25% (2/8) had benign findings. One new cancer was detected near a hip prosthesis due to reduced imaging artifacts. Average total procedure time was 77 +/- 21 min for transrectal and 74 +/- 22 min for percutaneous biopsies, with times to first core at 45 +/- 15 and 53 +/- 14 min, respectively.ConclusionIdentifying and accurately targeting suspicious prostate lesions is feasible using a 0.55T MRI scanner.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Fusion versus cognitive MRI-guided prostate biopsies in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer
    Lockhart, Kathleen
    Martin, Jarad
    White, Martin
    Raman, Avi
    Grant, Alexander
    Chong, Peter
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL UROLOGY, 2024, 17 (05) : 504 - 510
  • [32] MRI-guided in-bore biopsy for prostate cancer: what does the evidence say? A case series of 554 patients and a review of the current literature
    Morgan Pokorny
    Boon Kua
    Rachel Esler
    John Yaxley
    Hemamali Samaratunga
    Nigel Dunglison
    Troy Gianduzzo
    Geoff Coughlin
    Ross Holt
    Barbara Laing
    Darren Ault
    Nicholas Brown
    Rob Parkinson
    Les Thompson
    World Journal of Urology, 2019, 37 : 1263 - 1279
  • [33] Impact of Direct MRI-Guided Biopsy of the Prostate on Clinical Management
    Meermeier, Nicholas P.
    Foster, Bryan R.
    Liu, Jen-Jane
    Amling, Christopher L.
    Coakley, Fergus, V
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2019, 213 (02) : 371 - 376
  • [34] DNP in MRI: An in-bore approach at 1.5 T
    Krummenacker, Jan G.
    Denysenkov, Vasyl P.
    Terekhov, Maxim
    Schreiber, Laura M.
    Prisner, Thomas F.
    JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE, 2012, 215 : 94 - 99
  • [35] Comparison of patient comfort between MR-guided in-bore and MRI/ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsies within a prospective randomized trial
    Arsov, Christian
    Rabenalt, Robert
    Quentin, Michael
    Hiester, Andreas
    Blondin, Dirk
    Albers, Peter
    Antoch, Gerald
    Schimmoeller, Lars
    WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2016, 34 (02) : 215 - 220
  • [36] The urologist's learning curve of "in-bore" magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy
    Rosenzweig, Barak
    Drori, Tomer
    Raz, Orit
    Goldinger, Gil
    Shlomai, Gadi
    Zilberman, Dorit E.
    Shechtman, Moshe
    Ramon, Jacob
    Dotan, Zohar A.
    Portnoy, Orith
    BMC UROLOGY, 2021, 21 (01)
  • [37] Comparison of patient comfort between MR-guided in-bore and MRI/ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsies within a prospective randomized trial
    Christian Arsov
    Robert Rabenalt
    Michael Quentin
    Andreas Hiester
    Dirk Blondin
    Peter Albers
    Gerald Antoch
    Lars Schimmöller
    World Journal of Urology, 2016, 34 : 215 - 220
  • [38] Feasibility study of MR-guided transgluteal targeted in-bore biopsy for suspicious lesions of the prostate at 3 Tesla using a freehand approach
    Fischbach, Frank
    Wien, Lukas
    Krueger, Sascha
    Schnackenburg, Bernhard
    Baumunk, Daniel
    Friebe, Bjoern
    Schostak, Martin
    Ricke, Jens
    Fischbach, Katharina
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2018, 28 (06) : 2690 - 2699
  • [39] In-bore magnetic resonance-guided transrectal biopsy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer
    Felker, Ely R.
    Lee-Felker, Stephanie A.
    Feller, John
    Margolis, Daniel J.
    Lu, David S.
    Princenthal, Robert
    May, Stuart
    Cohen, Martin
    Huang, Jiaoti
    Yoshida, Jeffrey
    Greenwood, Bernadette
    Kim, Hyun J.
    Raman, Steven S.
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2016, 41 (05) : 954 - 962
  • [40] Structured reporting in radiologic education - Potential of different PI-RADS versions in prostate MRI controlled by in-bore MR-guided biopsies
    Garmer, Marietta
    Karpienski, Julia
    Groenemeyer, Dietrich H. W.
    Wagener, Birgit
    Kamper, Lars
    Haage, Patrick
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2022, 95 (1131)