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
  • [42] Diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer after negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging
    Zattoni, Fabio
    Morlacco, Alessandro
    Soligo, Matteo
    Mancini, Mariangela
    Leone, Nicolo
    Zecchini, Giovanni
    Reitano, Giuseppe
    Bednarova, Iliana
    Lacognata, Carmelo Salvino
    Lauro, Alberto
    Zanovello, Nicola
    Novara, Giacomo
    dal Moro, Fabrizio
    CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2022, 75 (03) : 277 - 283
  • [43] Magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer
    Heenan, SD
    PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES, 2004, 7 (04) : 282 - 288
  • [44] Comparison of Prostate Biopsy with or without Prebiopsy Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer Detection: An Observational Cohort Study
    Bryant, Richard J.
    Hobbs, Catherine P.
    Eyre, Katie S.
    Davies, Lucy C.
    Sullivan, Mark E.
    Shields, William
    Sooriakumaran, Prasanna
    Verrill, Clare L.
    Gleeson, Fergus, V
    MacPherson, Ruth E.
    Hamdy, Freddie C.
    Brewster, Simon F.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2019, 201 (03) : 510 - 518
  • [45] Prostate Cancer: The Role of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging
    Dias, Joao Lopes
    Pina, Joao Magalhaes
    Joao, Raquel
    Fialho, Joana
    Carmo, Sandra
    Leal, Cecilia
    Bilhim, Tiago
    Marques, Rui Mateus
    Pinheiro, Luis Campos
    ACTA MEDICA PORTUGUESA, 2015, 28 (02): : 240 - 249
  • [46] Comparisons between magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy and standard biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer A prospective cohort study
    Zhu, Guangbin
    Wang, Quan
    MEDICINE, 2018, 97 (36)
  • [47] Magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer
    S D Heenan
    Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, 2004, 7 : 282 - 288
  • [48] 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging improves the prostate cancer detection rate in transrectral ultrasound-guided biopsy
    Chen, Jie
    Yi, Xiao-Lei
    Jiang, Li-Xin
    Wang, Ren
    Zhao, Jun-Gong
    Li, Yue-Hua
    Hu, Bing
    EXPERIMENTAL AND THERAPEUTIC MEDICINE, 2015, 9 (01) : 207 - 212
  • [49] Updated Results of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guided Partial Prostate Brachytherapy for Favorable Risk Prostate Cancer: Implications for Focal Therapy
    Nguyen, Paul L.
    Chen, Ming-Hui
    Zhang, Yuanye
    Tempany, Clare M.
    Cormack, Robert A.
    Beard, Clair J.
    Hurwitz, Mark D.
    Suh, W. Warren
    D'Amico, Anthony V.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2012, 188 (04) : 1151 - 1156
  • [50] Negative Predictive Value of Prostate Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging among Men with Negative Prostate Biopsy and Elevated Prostate Specific Antigen: A Clinical Outcome Retrospective Cohort Study
    Lo, Glen
    Burton, Kirsteen R.
    Haider, Masoom A.
    Fleshner, Neil
    Finelli, Antonio
    Ghai, Sangeet
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2019, 202 (06) : 1159 - 1164