MRI/TRUS fusion vs. systematic biopsy: intra-patient comparison of diagnostic accuracy for prostate cancer using PI-RADS v2

被引:8
作者
Labra, Andres [1 ]
Gonzalez, Fernando [1 ,2 ]
Silva, Claudio [1 ]
Franz, Gerhard [1 ]
Pinochet, Rodrigo [3 ]
Gupta, Rajan T. [2 ,4 ,5 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Univ Desarrollo, Clin Alemana Santiago, Serv Radiol, Fac Med, 5951 Vitacura, Santiago 9160002, Chile
[2] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, DUMC Box 3808, Durham, NC 27710 USA
[3] Clin Alemana Santiago, Dept Surg, Div Urol, 5951 Vitacura, Santiago 9160002, Chile
[4] Duke Canc Inst, Ctr Prostate & Urol Canc, 20 Duke Med Circle,DUMC Box 103861, Durham, NC 27710 USA
[5] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Surg, Div Urol Surg, DUMC Box 2804, Durham, NC 27710 USA
[6] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Duke Prostate Ctr, DUMC Box 2804, Durham, NC 27710 USA
关键词
Prostate cancer; Prostate MRI; PI-RADS; MRI; TRUS fusion; MULTI-PARAMETRIC MRI; MAGNETIC-RESONANCE; RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; MULTIPARAMETRIC MRI; ULTRASOUND FUSION; GUIDED BIOPSY; REPEAT BIOPSY; VALIDATION; NOMOGRAM;
D O I
10.1007/s00261-020-02481-y
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
Objective To evaluate the efficacy of multiparametric magnetic resonance/transrectal ultrasound fusion (MRI/TRUS fusion) biopsy versus systematic biopsy and its association with PI-RADS v2 categories in patients with suspected prostate cancer. Materials and methods 122 patients undergoing both MRI/TRUS fusion and systematic biopsy, with suspicion of prostate cancer, with suspicious findings on MRI based on PI-RADS v2, were included between April 2016 and March 2017. Comparison of tumor detection rates using each technique and combined techniques was performed for all lesions as well as those that are traditionally difficult to access (i.e., anterior lesions). Results Prostate cancer was detected in 83/122 patients (68%) with 74.6% clinically significant lesions (Gleason 3 + 4 or greater). There was a statistically significant difference in presence of clinically significant prostate cancer in PI-RADS v2 categories of 3, 4, and 5 (20%, 52% and 77%, respectively, p < 0.001). Fusion biopsy was positive in a significantly higher percentage of patients versus systematic biopsy (56% versus 48%, respectively, p < 0.05). The fusion biopsy alone was positive in 20%. Of 34 patients with anterior lesions on MRI, 44% were detected only by fusion biopsy, with a joint yield of 71%. In patients with previous negative systematic biopsies, 48.7% lesions were found by fusion biopsy with 20.5% being exclusively positive by this method. The percentage of positive cores for fusion biopsies was significantly higher than for systematic biopsies (26% vs. 12.3%, p < 0.001). Conclusion The incorporation of MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy significantly improves the detection rate of prostate cancer versus systematic biopsy, particularly for anterior lesions.
引用
收藏
页码:2235 / 2243
页数:9
相关论文
共 40 条
[1]   Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study [J].
Ahmed, Hashim U. ;
Bosaily, Ahmed El-Shater ;
Brown, Louise C. ;
Gabe, Rhian ;
Kaplan, Richard ;
Parmar, Mahesh K. ;
Collaco-Moraes, Yolanda ;
Ward, Katie ;
Hindley, Richard G. ;
Freeman, Alex ;
Kirkham, Alex P. ;
Oldroyd, Robert ;
Parker, Chris ;
Emberton, Mark .
LANCET, 2017, 389 (10071) :815-822
[2]   A Randomized Controlled Trial To Assess and Compare the Outcomes of Two-core Prostate Biopsy Guided by Fused Magnetic Resonance and Transrectal Ultrasound Images and Traditional 12-core Systematic Biopsy [J].
Baco, Eduard ;
Rud, Erik ;
Eri, Lars Magne ;
Moen, Gunnar ;
Vlatkovic, Ljiljana ;
Svindland, Aud ;
Eggesbo, Heidi B. ;
Ukimura, Osamu .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2016, 69 (01) :149-156
[3]   A Systematic Review of the Existing Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 (PI-RADSv2) Literature and Subset Meta-Analysis of PI-RADSv2 Categories Stratified by Gleason Scores [J].
Barkovich, Emil Jernstedt ;
Shankar, Prasad R. ;
Westphalen, Antonio C. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2019, 212 (04) :847-854
[4]   Pathological Upgrading and Up Staging With Immediate Repeat Biopsy in Patients Eligible for Active Surveillance [J].
Berglund, Ryan K. ;
Masterson, Timothy A. ;
Vora, Kinjal C. ;
Eggener, Scott E. ;
Eastham, James A. ;
Guillonneau, Bertrand D. .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2008, 180 (05) :1964-1967
[5]   Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology [J].
Chun, FKH ;
Steuber, T ;
Erbersdobler, A ;
Currlin, E ;
Walz, J ;
Schlomm, T ;
Haese, A ;
Heinzer, H ;
McCormack, M ;
Huland, H ;
Graefen, M ;
Karakiewicz, PI .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2006, 49 (05) :820-826
[6]   Value of Multiparametric MRI in the Work-up of Prostate Cancer [J].
Cornud, F. ;
Delongchamps, N. B. ;
Mozer, P. ;
Beuvon, F. ;
Schull, A. ;
Muradyan, N. ;
Peyromaure, M. .
CURRENT UROLOGY REPORTS, 2012, 13 (01) :82-92
[7]   MR Imaging-Transrectal US Fusion for Targeted Prostate Biopsies: Implications for Diagnosis and Clinical Management [J].
Costa, Daniel N. ;
Pedrosa, Ivan ;
Donato, Francisco, Jr. ;
Roehrborn, Claus G. ;
Rofsky, Neil M. .
RADIOGRAPHICS, 2015, 35 (03) :696-708
[8]   Accuracy of Multiparametric MRI for Prostate Cancer Detection: A Meta-Analysis [J].
de Rooij, Maarten ;
Hamoen, Esther H. J. ;
Futterer, Jurgen J. ;
Barentsz, Jelle O. ;
Rovers, Maroeska M. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2014, 202 (02) :343-351
[9]   Radical Prostatectomy Findings in Patients in Whom Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer Fails [J].
Duffield, Amy S. ;
Lee, Thomas K. ;
Miyamoto, Hiroshi ;
Carter, H. Ballantine ;
Epstein, Jonathan I. .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2009, 182 (05) :2274-2278
[10]   Areas Suspicious for Prostate Cancer: MR-guided Biopsy in Patients with at Least One Transrectal US-guided Biopsy with a Negative Finding-Multiparametric MR Imaging for Detection and Biopsy Planning [J].
Franiel, Tobias ;
Stephan, Carsten ;
Erbersdobler, Andreas ;
Dietz, Ekkehart ;
Maxeiner, Andreas ;
Hell, Nina ;
Huppertz, Alexander ;
Miller, Kurt ;
Strecker, Ralph ;
Hamm, Bernd .
RADIOLOGY, 2011, 259 (01) :162-172