Comparison of Initial Experience with Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging Cognitive Guided Micro-Ultrasound Biopsies versus Established Transperineal Robotic Ultrasound Magnetic Resonance Imaging Fusion Biopsies for Prostate Cancer

被引:35
作者
Claros, Oliver Rojas [1 ,2 ]
Tourinho-Barbosa, Rafael Rocha [1 ,3 ]
Fregeville, Aude [1 ]
Colomer Gallardo, Anna [4 ]
Muttin, Fabio [1 ,5 ]
Carneiro, Arie [1 ,2 ]
Stabile, Armando [1 ]
Moschini, Marco [1 ]
Macek, Petr [1 ]
Cathala, Nathalie [1 ]
Mombet, Annick [1 ]
Sanchez-Salas, Rafael [1 ]
Cathelineau, Xavier [1 ]
机构
[1] Inst Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France
[2] Hosp Israelita Albert Einstein, Sao Paulo, Brazil
[3] Hosp Cardiopulm, Salvador, BA, Brazil
[4] Hosp Badalona Germans Trias & Pujol, Badalona, Spain
[5] IRCCS Osped San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
关键词
prostatic neoplasms; biopsy; magnetic resonance imaging; ultrasound; high-intensity focused; transrectal;
D O I
10.1097/JU.0000000000000692
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
Purpose:We compared cancer detection rates in patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging cognitive guided micro-ultrasound biopsy vs robotic ultrasound magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy for prostate cancer.Materials and Methods:Among 269 targeted biopsy procedures 222 men underwent robotic ultrasound magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy and 47 micro-ultrasound biopsy. Robotic ultrasound magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy was performed using the transperineal Artemis (TM) device while micro-ultrasound biopsy was performed transrectally with the high resolution ExactVu (TM) system. Random biopsies were performed in addition to targeted biopsy in both modalities. Prostate cancer detection rates and concordance between random and target biopsies were also assessed.Results:Groups were comparable in terms of age, prostate specific antigen, prostate volume and magnetic resonance PI-RADS (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System) version 2 score. The micro-ultrasound biopsy group presented fewer biopsied cores in random and target approaches. In targeted biopsies micro-ultrasound biopsy cases presented higher detection of clinically significant disease (Gleason score greater than 6) than the robotic ultrasound magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy group (38% vs 23%, p=0.02). When considering prostate cancer detection regardless of Gleason score or prostate cancer detection by random+target biopsies, no difference was found between the groups. However, on a per core basis overall prostate cancer detection rates favored micro-ultrasound biopsy in random and targeted scenarios. In addition, the PRI-MUS (Prostate Risk Identification Using Micro-Ultrasound) score yielded by micro-ultrasound visualization was independently associated with improved cancer detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer.Conclusions:In our initial experience micro-ultrasound biopsy featured a higher clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate in target cores than robotic ultrasound magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy, which was associated with target features in micro-ultrasound (PRI-MUS score). These findings reinforce the role of micro-ultrasound technology in targeted biopsies.
引用
收藏
页码:918 / 923
页数:6
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]   Impact of using 29 MHz high-resolution micro-ultrasound in real-time targeting of transrectal prostate biopsies: initial experience [J].
Abouassaly, Robert ;
Klein, Eric A. ;
El-Shefai, Ahmed ;
Stephenson, Andrew .
WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2020, 38 (05) :1201-1206
[2]   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
[3]   A multicentric study on accurate grading of prostate cancer with systematic and MRI/US fusion targeted biopsies: comparison with final histopathology after radical prostatectomy [J].
Diamand, R. ;
Oderda, M. ;
Obeid, W. Al Hajj ;
Albisinni, S. ;
Van Velthoven, R. ;
Fasolis, G. ;
Simone, G. ;
Ferriero, M. ;
Roche, J-B. ;
Piechaud, T. ;
Pastore, A. ;
Carbone, A. ;
Fiard, G. ;
Descotes, J-L. ;
Marra, G. ;
Gontero, P. ;
Altobelli, E. ;
Papalia, R. ;
Kumar, P. ;
Eldred-Evans, D. ;
Giacobbe, A. ;
Muto, G. ;
Lacetera, V. ;
Beatrici, V. ;
Roumeguere, T. ;
Peltier, A. .
WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2019, 37 (10) :2109-2117
[4]   Comparison of conventional transrectal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and micro-ultrasound for visualizing prostate cancer in an active surveillance population: A feasibility study [J].
Eure, Gregg ;
Fanney, Daryl ;
Lin, Jefferson ;
Wodlinger, Brian ;
Ghai, Sangeet .
CUAJ-CANADIAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 2019, 13 (03) :E70-E77
[5]   Suspicious findings on micro-ultrasound imaging and early detection of prostate cancer [J].
Ghai, Sangeet ;
Van der Kwast, Theodorus .
UROLOGY CASE REPORTS, 2018, 16 :98-100
[6]   Assessing Cancer Risk on Novel 29 MHz Micro-Ultrasound Images of the Prostate: Creation of the Micro-Ultrasound Protocol for Prostate Risk Identification [J].
Ghai, Sangeet ;
Eure, Gregg ;
Fradet, Vincent ;
Hyndman, Matthew E. ;
McGrath, Theresa ;
Wodlinger, Brian ;
Pavlovich, Christian P. .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2016, 196 (02) :562-568
[7]   Does magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy improve prostate cancer detection? A comparison of systematic, cognitive fusion and ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy [J].
Kam, Jonathan ;
Yuminaga, Yuigi ;
Kim, Raymond ;
Aluwihare, Kushlan ;
Macneil, Finlay ;
Ouyang, Rupert ;
Ruthven, Stephen ;
Louie-Johnsun, Mark .
PROSTATE INTERNATIONAL, 2018, 6 (03) :88-93
[8]   MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis [J].
Kasivisvanathan, V ;
Rannikko, A. S. ;
Borghi, M. ;
Panebianco, V ;
Mynderse, L. A. ;
Vaarala, M. H. ;
Briganti, A. ;
Budaus, L. ;
Hellawell, G. ;
Hindley, R. G. ;
Roobol, M. J. ;
Eggener, S. ;
Ghei, M. ;
Villers, A. ;
Bladou, F. ;
Villeirs, G. M. ;
Virdi, J. ;
Boxler, S. ;
Robert, G. ;
Singh, P. B. ;
Venderink, W. ;
Hadaschik, B. A. ;
Ruffion, A. ;
Hu, J. C. ;
Margolis, D. ;
Crouzet, S. ;
Klotz, L. ;
Taneja, S. S. ;
Pinto, P. ;
Gill, I ;
Allen, C. ;
Giganti, F. ;
Freeman, A. ;
Morris, S. ;
Punwani, S. ;
Williams, N. R. ;
Brew-Graves, C. ;
Deeks, J. ;
Takwoingi, Y. ;
Emberton, M. ;
Moore, C. M. .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2018, 378 (19) :1767-1777
[9]   Comparison of the Diagnostic Accuracy of Micro-ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsies for the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer [J].
Lughezzani, Giovanni ;
Saita, Alberto ;
Lazzeri, Massimo ;
Paciotti, Marco ;
Maffei, Davide ;
Lista, Giuliana ;
Hurle, Rodolfo ;
Buffi, Nicola Maria ;
Guazzoni, Giorgio ;
Casale, Paolo .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY ONCOLOGY, 2019, 2 (03) :329-332
[10]   Controversies in MR targeted biopsy: alone or combined, cognitive versus software-based fusion, transrectal versus transperineal approach? [J].
Marra, Giancarlo ;
Ploussard, Guillaume ;
Futterer, Jurgen ;
Valerio, Massimo ;
De Visschere, P. J. L. ;
Tsaur, I. ;
Tilki, D. ;
Ost, P. ;
Gandaglia, G. ;
Van den Bergh, R. C. N. ;
Surcel, C. ;
Kretschmer, A. ;
Heidegger, I. ;
Borgmann, H. ;
Mathieu, R. .
WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2019, 37 (02) :277-287