Detecting Prostate Cancer A Prospective Comparison of Systematic Prostate Biopsy With Targeted Biopsy Guided by Fused MRI and Transrectal Ultrasound

被引:15
|
作者
Brock, Marko [1 ]
von Bodman, Christian [1 ]
Palisaar, Jueri [1 ]
Becker, Wolfgang [2 ]
Martin-Seidel, Philipp [2 ]
Noldus, Joachim [1 ]
机构
[1] Ruhr Univ Bochum, Dept Urol, Marien Hosp Herne, D-44627 Herne, Germany
[2] Radiol Gemeinschaftpraxis, Herne, Germany
来源
DEUTSCHES ARZTEBLATT INTERNATIONAL | 2015年 / 112卷 / 37期
关键词
REAL-TIME ELASTOGRAPHY; RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; SATURATION BIOPSY; FUSION BIOPSY; ULTRASONOGRAPHY; POPULATION; GUIDELINES; SPECIMENS; SERIES;
D O I
10.3238/arztebl.2015.0605
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: When prostate cancer is suspected, the prostate gland is biopsied with the aid of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS). The sensitivity of prostatic biopsy is about 50%. The fusion of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data with TRUS enables the targeted biopsy of suspicious areas. We studied whether this improves the detection of prostate cancer. Methods: 168 men with suspected prostate cancer underwent prostate MRI after a previous negative biopsy. Suspicious lesions were assessed with the classification of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System and biopsied in targeted fashion with the aid of fused MRI and TRUS. At the same sitting, a systematic biopsy with at least 12 biopsy cores was performed. Results: Prostate cancer was detected in 71 patients (42.3%; 95% CI, 35.05-49.82). The detection rate of fusion-assisted targeted biopsy was 19% (95% CI, 13.83-25.65), compared to 37.5% (95% CI, 30.54-45.02) with systematic biopsy. Clinically significant cancer was more commonly revealed by targeted biopsy (84.4%; 95% CI, 68.25-93.14) than by systematic biopsy (65.1%; 95% CI, 52.75-75.67). In 7 patients with normal MRI findings, cancer was detected by systematic biopsy alone. Compared to systematic biopsy, targeted biopsy had a higher overall detection rate (16.5% vs. 6.3%), a higher rate of infiltration per core (30% vs. 10%), and a higher rate of detection of poorly differentiated carcinoma (18.5% vs. 3%). Patients with negative biopsies did not undergo any further observation. Conclusion: MRI/TRUS fusion-assisted targeted biopsy improves the detection rate of prostate cancer after a previous negative biopsy. Targeted biopsy is more likely to reveal clinically significant cancer than systematic biopsy; nevertheless, systematic biopsy should still be performed, even if the MRI findings are negative.
引用
收藏
页码:605 / U13
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A Prospective Comparison of MRI-US Fused Targeted Biopsy Versus Systematic Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy for Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients on Active Surveillance
    Da Rosa, Michael R.
    Milot, Laurent
    Sugar, Linda
    Vesprini, Danny
    Chung, Hans
    Loblaw, Andrew
    Pond, Gregory R.
    Klotz, Laurence
    Haider, Masoom A.
    JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2015, 41 (01) : 220 - 225
  • [2] Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer
    Drost, Frank-Jan H.
    Osses, Daniel F.
    Nieboer, Daan
    Steyerberg, Ewout W.
    Bangma, Chris H.
    Roobol, Monique J.
    Schoots, Ivo G.
    COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2019, (04):
  • [3] MRI/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Targeted Biopsy and Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Systematic Biopsy for Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Xie, Jianfeng
    Jin, Chunchun
    Liu, Mengmeng
    Sun, Kun
    Jin, Zhanqiang
    Ding, Zhimin
    Gong, Xuehao
    FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2022, 12
  • [4] Direct Comparison of Targeted MRI-Guided Biopsy with Systematic Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy in Patients with Previous Negative Prostate Biopsies
    Kaufmann, Sascha
    Kruck, Stephan
    Kramer, Ulrich
    Gatidis, Sergios
    Stenzl, Arnulf
    Roethke, Matthias
    Scharpf, Marcus
    Schilling, David
    UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2015, 94 (03) : 319 - 325
  • [5] Operator is an Independent Predictor of Detecting Prostate Cancer at Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Prostate Biopsy
    Lawrentschuk, Nathan
    Toi, Ants
    Lockwood, Gina A.
    Evans, Andrew
    Finelli, Antonio
    O'Malley, Martin
    Margolis, Myles
    Ghai, Sangeet
    Fleshner, Neil E.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2009, 182 (06): : 2659 - 2663
  • [6] A Prospective Comparison of MRI-Guided Targeted Biopsy with 12-Core Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Systematic Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: An Indian Experience
    Netaji, Arjunlokesh
    Kubihal, Vijay
    Sharma, Raju
    Seth, Amlesh
    Kaushal, Seema
    Das, Chandan J.
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY AND IMAGING, 2024,
  • [7] SYSTEMATIC TRANSRECTAL ULTRASOUND-GUIDED BIOPSY OF THE PROSTATE
    GARBER, ST
    GOLDENBERG, SL
    COOPERBERG, PL
    WONG, AD
    BILBY, JH
    MATHIESON, JR
    CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF RADIOLOGISTS JOURNAL-JOURNAL DE L ASSOCIATION CANADIENNE DES RADIOLOGISTES, 1994, 45 (05): : 387 - 390
  • [8] Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy: a comparison with systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy
    Silecchia, G.
    Falagario, U.
    Sanguedolce, F.
    Macarini, L.
    Autorino, R.
    Cormio, L.
    JOURNAL OF GERONTOLOGY AND GERIATRICS, 2018, 66 (04): : 200 - 204
  • [9] Predictors of prostate cancer on repeat transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic prostate biopsy
    Park, SJ
    Miyake, H
    Hara, I
    Eto, H
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2003, 10 (02) : 68 - 71
  • [10] Diagnostic performance of targeted transrectal MRI-Ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer
    Yuwono, A.
    Tan, T. -W.
    Yeow, Y.
    Lee, C. -H.
    Tan, C. -H.
    Chong, K. -T.
    Lee, Y. -M.
    Png, K. -S.
    Tan, Y. -K.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2017, 119 : 19 - 19