Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)-guided In-bore Biopsy to MRI-ultrasound Fusion and Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Prostate Biopsy in Patients with Prior Negative Biopsies

被引:159
|
作者
Arsov, Christian [1 ]
Rabenalt, Robert [1 ]
Blondin, Dirk [2 ]
Quentin, Michael [2 ]
Hiester, Andreas [1 ]
Godehardt, Erhard [3 ]
Gabbert, Helmut E. [4 ]
Becker, Nikolaus [5 ]
Antoch, Gerald [2 ]
Albers, Peter [1 ]
Schimmoeller, Lars [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Dusseldorf, Dept Urol, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany
[2] Univ Dusseldorf, Dept Diagnost & Intervent Radiol, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany
[3] Univ Dusseldorf, Dept Cardiovasc Surg, Div Stat, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany
[4] Univ Dusseldorf, Dept Pathol, D-40225 Dusseldorf, Germany
[5] German Canc Res Ctr Heidelberg, Div Canc Epidemiol, Heidelberg, Germany
关键词
Prostate cancer; Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging; Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy; Magnetic resonance imaging-guided in-bore prostate biopsy; Randomized trial; SCORING SYSTEM; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; MEN; VALIDATION; GUIDELINES; CORES;
D O I
10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.008
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: A significant proportion of prostate cancers (PCas) are missed by conventional transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-GB). It remains unclear whether the combined approach using targeted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy (FUS-GB) and systematic TRUS-GB is superior to targeted MRI-guided in-bore biopsy (IB-GB) for PCa detection. Objective: To compare PCa detection between IB-GB alone and FUS-GB + TRUS-GB in patients with at least one negative TRUS-GB and prostate-specific antigen >= 4 ng/ml. Design, setting, and participants: Patients were prospectively randomized after multi-parametric prostate MRI to IB-GB (arm A) or FUS-GB + TRUS-GB (arm B) from November 2011 to July 2014. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The study was powered at 80% to demonstrate an overall PCa detection rate of >= 60% in arm B compared to 40% in arm A. Secondary endpoints were the distribution of highest Gleason scores, the rate of detection of significant PCa (Gleason >= 7), the number of biopsy cores to detect one (significant) PCa, the positivity rate for biopsy cores, and tumor involvement per biopsy core. Results and limitations: The study was halted after interim analysis because the primary endpoint was not met. The trial enrolled 267 patients, of whom 210 were analyzed (106 randomized to arm A and 104 to arm B). PCa detection was 37% in arm A and 39% in arm B (95% confidence interval for difference, -16% to 11%; p = 0.7). Detection rates for significant PCa (29% vs 32%; p = 0.7) and the highest percentage tumor involvement per biopsy core (48% vs 42%; p = 0.4) were similar between the arms. The mean number of cores was 5.6 versus 17 (p < 0.001). A limitation is the limited number of patients because of early cessation of accrual. Conclusions: This trial failed to identify an important improvement in detection rate for the combined biopsy approach over MRI-targeted biopsy alone. A prospective comparison between MRI-targeted biopsy alone and systematic TRUS-GB is justified. Patient summary: Our randomized study showed similar prostate cancer detection rates between targeted prostate biopsy guided by magnetic resonance imaging and the combination of targeted biopsy and systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. An important improvement in detection rates using the combined biopsy approach can be excluded. (C) 2015 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:713 / 720
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Augmenting MRI-transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy with temporal ultrasound data: a clinical feasibility study
    Imani, Farhad
    Zhuang, Bo
    Tahmasebi, Amir
    Kwak, Jin Tae
    Xu, Sheng
    Agarwal, Harsh
    Bharat, Shyam
    Uniyal, Nishant
    Turkbey, Ismail Baris
    Choyke, Peter
    Pinto, Peter
    Wood, Bradford
    Moradi, Mehdi
    Mousavi, Parvin
    Abolmaesumi, Purang
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED RADIOLOGY AND SURGERY, 2015, 10 (06) : 727 - 735
  • [22] Importance of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-guided fusion biopsy for the detection and monitoring of prostate cancer
    Ganzer, R.
    Brummeisl, W.
    Siokou, F. S.
    Scheck, R.
    Franz, T.
    Ho-Thi, P.
    Mangold, A.
    UROLOGE, 2019, 58 (12): : 1499 - 1508
  • [23] 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
  • [24] Imaging of clinically silent rectoprostatic hematoma in MRI guided in-bore prostate biopsy
    Garmer, Marietta
    Hoffmann, Christin
    Groenemeyer, Dietrich
    Wagener, Birgit
    Kamper, Lars
    Haage, Patrick
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2022, 12 (01)
  • [25] Prospective Study of Diagnostic Accuracy Comparing Prostate Cancer Detection by Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy Versus Magnetic Resonance (MR) Imaging with Subsequent MR-guided Biopsy in Men Without Previous Prostate Biopsies
    Pokorny, Morgan R.
    De Rooij, Maarten
    Duncan, Earl
    Schroeder, Fritz H.
    Parkinson, Robert
    Barentsz, Jelle O.
    Thompson, Leslie C.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2014, 66 (01) : 22 - 29
  • [26] Performance of Combined Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-guided and Systematic Biopsy of the Prostate in Biopsy-naive Patients and Patients with Prior Biopsies
    Preisser, Felix
    Theissen, Lena
    Wenzel, Mike
    Humke, Clara
    Bodelle, Boris
    Koellermann, Jens
    Kluth, Luis
    Banek, Severine
    Becker, Andreas
    Roos, Frederik
    Chun, Felix K-H
    Mandel, Philipp
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS, 2021, 7 (01): : 39 - 46
  • [27] Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus combined magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion and systematic biopsy for prostate cancer detection in routine clinical practice
    Bae, Jae Heung
    Kim, See Hyung
    ULTRASONOGRAPHY, 2020, 39 (02) : 137 - 143
  • [28] Comparison of procedural anxiety and pain associated with conventional transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy to magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy: a prospective cohort trial
    Deivasigamani, Sriram
    Adams, Eric S.
    Kotamarti, Srinath
    Mottaghi, Mahdi
    Taha, Terek
    Aminsharifi, Ali
    Michael, Zoe
    Seguier, Denis
    Polascik, Thomas J.
    PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES, 2024, 27 (02) : 294 - 299
  • [29] Detection Rate of Prostate Cancer in Repeat Biopsy after an Initial Negative Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy
    Goertz, Magdalena
    Huber, Ann-Kathrin
    Linz, Tim
    Schwab, Constantin
    Stenzinger, Albrecht
    Goertz, Lukas
    Bonekamp, David
    Schlemmer, Heinz-Peter
    Hohenfellner, Markus
    DIAGNOSTICS, 2023, 13 (10)
  • [30] Evaluation of MRI/Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Prostate Biopsy Using Transrectal and Transperineal Approaches
    Tewes, Susanne
    Peters, Inga
    Tiemeyer, Ansgar
    Peperhove, Matti
    Hartung, Dagmar
    Pertschy, Stefanie
    Kuczyk, Markus A.
    Wacker, Frank
    Hueper, Katja
    BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, 2017, 2017