Risk of Prostate Cancer after a Negative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guided Biopsy

被引:24
作者
Kinnaird, Adam [1 ]
Sharma, Vidit [1 ]
Chuang, Ryan [1 ]
Priester, Alan [2 ]
Tran, Elizabeth [1 ]
Barsa, Danielle E. [1 ]
Delfin, Merdie [1 ]
Kwan, Lorna [1 ]
Sisk, Anthony [3 ]
Felker, Ely [4 ]
Marks, Leonard S. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif Los Angeles, David Geffen Sch Med, Dept Urol, 300 Stein Plaza,3rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA
[2] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Dept Bioengn, Los Angeles, CA USA
[3] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Dept Pathol & Lab Med, Los Angeles, CA USA
[4] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Dept Radiol Sci, Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
关键词
biopsy; prostatic neoplasms; magnetic resonance imaging;
D O I
10.1097/JU.0000000000001232
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: Magnetic resonance imaging guided biopsy which reveals no cancer may impart reassurance beyond that offered by ultrasound guided biopsy. However, followup of men after a negative magnetic resonance imaging guided biopsy has been mostly by prostate specific antigen testing and reports of followup tissue confirmation are few. We investigated the incidence of clinically significant prostate cancer in such men who, because of persistent cancer suspicion, subsequently underwent a repeat magnetic resonance imaging guided biopsy. Materials and Methods: Subjects were all men with a negative initial magnetic resonance imaging guided biopsy who underwent at least 1 further magnetic resonance imaging guided biopsy due to continued clinical suspicion of clinically significant prostate cancer (September 2009 to July 2019). Biopsies were magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion with targeted and systematic cores. Regions of interest from initial magnetic resonance imaging and any new regions of interest at followup magnetic resonance imaging guided biopsy were targeted. The primary end point was detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason Grade Group 2 or greater). Results: Of 2,716 men 733 had a negative initial magnetic resonance imaging guided biopsy. Study subjects were 73/733 who underwent followup magnetic resonance imaging guided biopsy. Median (IQR) age and prostate specific antigen density were 64 years (59-67) and 0.12 ng/ml/cc (0.08-0.17), respectively. Baseline PI-RADS (R) scores were 3 or greater in 74%. At followup magnetic resonance imaging guided biopsy (median 2.4 years, IQR 1.3e3.6), 17/73 (23%) were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer. When followup magnetic resonance imaging revealed a lesion (PI-RADS 3 or greater), clinically significant prostate cancer was found in 17/53 (32%). When followup magnetic resonance imaging was negative (PI-RADS less than 3), cancer was not found (0/ 20) (p <0.01). Overall 54% of men with PI-RADS 5 at followup magnetic resonance imaging guided biopsy were found to have clinically significant prostate cancer. Conclusions: Men with negative magnetic resonance imaging following an initial negative magnetic resonance imaging guided biopsy are unlikely to harbor clinically significant prostate cancer and may avoid repeat biopsy. However, when lesions are seen on followup magnetic resonance imaging, repeat magnetic resonance imaging guided biopsy is warranted.
引用
收藏
页码:1180 / 1186
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Prospective Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guided In-bore Prostate Biopsy versus Systematic Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Prostate Biopsy in Biopsy Naive Men with Elevated Prostate Specific Antigen
    Quentin, Michael
    Blondin, Dirk
    Arsov, Christian
    Schimmoeller, Lars
    Hiester, Andreas
    Godehardt, Erhard
    Albers, Peter
    Antoch, Gerald
    Rabenalt, Robert
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2014, 192 (05) : 1374 - 1379
  • [22] Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer in patients with prior negative biopsy results
    Abdi, Hamidreza
    Zargar, Homayoun
    Goldenberg, S. Larry
    Walshe, Triona
    Pourmalek, Farshad
    Eddy, Christopher
    Chang, Silvia D.
    Gleave, Martin E.
    Harris, Alison C.
    So, Alan I.
    Machan, Lindsay
    Black, Peter C.
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2015, 33 (04) : 165.e1 - 165.e7
  • [23] The role of magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy for diagnosis of prostate cancer; comparison between FUSION and "IN-BORE" approaches
    D'agostino, Daniele
    Casablanca, Carlo
    Bianchi, Federico Mineo
    Corsi, Paolo
    Romagnoli, Daniele
    Giampaoli, Marco
    Fiori, Cristian
    Schiavina, Riccardo
    Brunocilla, Eugenio
    Artibani, Walter
    Porreca, Angelo
    MINERVA UROLOGY AND NEPHROLOGY, 2021, 73 (01): : 90 - 97
  • [24] Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment in Biopsy-naive Patients: The Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator in Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound (TRUS) Fusion Biopsy and Systematic TRUS Biopsy
    Mannaerts, Christophe K.
    Gayet, Maudy
    Verbeek, Jan F.
    Engelbrecht, Marc R. W.
    Savci-Heijink, C. Dilara
    Jager, Gerrit J.
    Gielens, Maaike P. M.
    van der Linden, Hans
    Beerlage, Harrie P.
    de Reijke, Theo M.
    Wijkstra, Hessel
    Roobol, Monique J.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY ONCOLOGY, 2018, 1 (02): : 109 - 117
  • [25] Development and validation of a predictive model for determining clinically significant prostate cancer in men with negative magnetic resonance imaging after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy
    Liu, Gang
    Zhu, Yuze
    Yao, Zichuan
    Jiang, Yunzhong
    Wu, Bin
    Bai, Song
    PROSTATE, 2021, 81 (13) : 983 - 991
  • [26] Sextant localization of prostate cancer: Comparison of sextant biopsy, magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging with step section histology
    Wefer, AE
    Hricak, H
    Vigneron, DB
    Coakley, FV
    Lu, Y
    Wefer, J
    Mueller-Lisse, U
    Carroll, PR
    Kurhanewicz, J
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2000, 164 (02) : 400 - 404
  • [27] Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Fusion Biopsy to Detect Progression in Patients with Existing Lesions on Active Surveillance for Low and Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer
    Frye, Thomas P.
    George, Arvin K.
    Kilchevsky, Amichai
    Maruf, Mahir
    Siddiqui, M. Minhaj
    Kongnyuy, Michael
    Muthigi, Akhil
    Han, Hui
    Parnes, Howard L.
    Merino, Maria
    Choyke, Peter L.
    Turkbey, Baris
    Wood, Brad
    Pinto, Peter A.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2017, 197 (03) : 640 - 646
  • [28] Reasons for missing clinically significant prostate cancer by targeted magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy
    Klingebiel, M.
    Arsov, C.
    Ullrich, T.
    Quentin, M.
    Al-Monajjed, R.
    Mally, D.
    Sawicki, L. M.
    Hiester, A.
    Esposito, I
    Albers, P.
    Antoch, G.
    Schimmoeller, L.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2021, 137
  • [29] Diagnostic Accuracy of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Fusion Guided Targeted Biopsy Evaluated by Transperineal Template Saturation Prostate Biopsy for the Detection and Characterization of Prostate Cancer
    Mortezavi, Ashkan
    Marzendorfer, Olivia
    Donati, Olivio F.
    Rizzi, Gianluca
    Rupp, Niels J.
    Wettstein, Marian S.
    Gross, Oliver
    Sulser, Tullio
    Hermanns, Thomas
    Eberli, Daniel
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2018, 200 (02) : 309 - 317
  • [30] Prospective nonrandomized study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy to magnetic resonance imaging with subsequent MRI-guided biopsy in biopsy-naive patients
    Castellucci, Roberto
    Linares Quevedo, Ana I.
    Sanchez Gomez, Francisco J.
    Diez Rodriguez, Jesus
    Cogorno, Leopoldo
    Cogollos Acuna, Isidro
    Salmeron Beliz, Isabel
    Fernandez de Legaria, Marta Munoz
    Martinez Pineiro, Luis
    MINERVA UROLOGICA E NEFROLOGICA, 2017, 69 (06) : 589 - 595