Top

World Journal of Urology

Published in:

01-05-2018 | Topic Paper

A 12-year follow-up of ANNA/C-TRUS image-targeted biopsies in patients suspicious for prostate cancer

Authors: Theodoros Tokas, Björn Grabski, Udo Paul, Leif Bäurle, Tillmann Loch

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 5/2018

Abstract

Purpose

PSA screening has been rehabilitated. PSA is not specific and can be elevated by benign reasons. Additionally, a subgroup of patients with prostate hyperplasia may harbor prostate cancer (PCa). During monitoring, the clinician aims to detect significant tumors in time, submitting patients to minimal psychological and physical burden, especially in men with high serum PSA and repeat biopsies. We aimed to determine long-term outcomes with respect to ANNA/C-TRUS ability to detect PCa with six targeted biopsies.

Methods

A subset of 71 patients were enrolled. During monitoring, they were subjected to primary, secondary, or even multiple prostate biopsies when needed. Protocol monitoring included PSA measurements, digital rectal examination (DRE) and imaging.

Results

The median follow-up was 12 years. Forty-one patients had a history of negative systematic random biopsies (1–3 sessions). Their age ranges 62–85 years, PSA 0.5–47.3 ng/ml, and the median prostate volume 11–255 cc. During monitoring, 15 patients were diagnosed with PCa. Only two harbored aggressive tumors. The median time to diagnosis was 6 years. All PCa patients are free from biochemical relapse. From the remaining 56 patients, 11 did not have any biopsies, 12 had one, 13 had two, and 20 had three or more biopsy sessions.

Conclusions

ANNA/C-TRUS is a useful method monitoring patients with a risk of PCa. 50–75% of the usually performed biopsy cores could be spared and, after 12 years, 97% of the patients were either without evidence of a PCa or were diagnosed with a good prognosis tumor.

Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray F (2015) Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 136(5):E359–E386. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.29210 CrossRefPubMed

Albright F, Stephenson RA, Agarwal N, Teerlink CC, Lowrance WT, Farnham JM, Albright LA (2015) Prostate cancer risk prediction based on complete prostate cancer family history. Prostate 75(4):390–398. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.22925 CrossRefPubMed

Donovan J, Hamdy F, Neal D, Peters T, Oliver S, Brindle L, Jewell D, Powell P, Gillatt D, Dedman D, Mills N, Smith M, Noble S, Lane A (2003) Prostate testing for cancer and treatment (ProtecT) feasibility study. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England) 7(14):1–88

Andriole GL, Levin DL, Crawford ED, Gelmann EP, Pinsky PF, Chia D, Kramer BS, Reding D, Church TR, Grubb RL, Izmirlian G, Ragard LR, Clapp JD, Prorok PC, Gohagan JK (2005) Prostate cancer screening in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial: findings from the initial screening round of a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 97(6):433–438. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dji065 CrossRefPubMed

Carvalhal GF, Smith DS, Mager DE, Ramos C, Catalona WJ (1999) Digital rectal examination for detecting prostate cancer at prostate specific antigen levels of 4 ng/ml or less. J Urol 161(3):835–839CrossRefPubMed

Epstein JI, Herawi M (2006) Prostate needle biopsies containing prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical foci suspicious for carcinoma: implications for patient care. J Urol 175(3 Pt 1):820–834. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(05)00337-x CrossRefPubMed

Merrimen JL, Jones G, Walker D, Leung CS, Kapusta LR, Srigley JR (2009) Multifocal high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia is a significant risk factor for prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Urol 182(2):485–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.04.016 (discussion 490) CrossRefPubMed

van Hove A, Savoie PH, Maurin C, Brunelle S, Gravis G, Salem N, Walz J (2014) Comparison of image-guided targeted biopsies versus systematic randomized biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic literature review of well-designed studies. World J Urol 32(4):847–858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1332-3 CrossRefPubMed

Loch T, Leuschner I, Genberg C, Weichert-Jacobsen K, Kuppers F, Yfantis E, Evans M, Tsarev V, Stockle M (1999) Artificial neural network analysis (ANNA) of prostatic transrectal ultrasound. Prostate 39(3):198–204CrossRefPubMed

10.

Grabski B, Baeurle L, Loch A, Wefer B, Paul U, Loch T (2011) Computerized transrectal ultrasound of the prostate in a multicenter setup (C-TRUS-MS): detection of cancer after multiple negative systematic random and in primary biopsies. World J Urol 29(5):573–579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0713-0 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Loch T (2007) Computerized transrectal ultrasound (C-TRUS) of the prostate: detection of cancer in patients with multiple negative systematic random biopsies. World J Urol 25(4):375–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-007-0181-8 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Stamey TA, Yang N, Hay AR, McNeal JE, Freiha FS, Redwine E (1987) Prostate-specific antigen as a serum marker for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. N Engl J Med 317(15):909–916. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm198710083171501 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS, Parnes HL, Minasian LM, Ford LG, Lippman SM, Crawford ED, Crowley JJ, Coltman CA Jr (2004) Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level ≤ 4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med 350(22):2239–2246. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa031918 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Gosselaar C, Roobol MJ, Roemeling S, Schroder FH (2008) The role of the digital rectal examination in subsequent screening visits in the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer (ERSPC). Rotterdam Eur Urol 54(3):581–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.03.104 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Okotie OT, Roehl KA, Han M, Loeb S, Gashti SN, Catalona WJ (2007) Characteristics of prostate cancer detected by digital rectal examination only. Urology 70(6):1117–1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2007.07.019 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Smeenge M, Barentsz J, Cosgrove D, de la Rosette J, de Reijke T, Eggener S, Frauscher F, Kovacs G, Matin SF, Mischi M, Pinto P, Rastinehad A, Rouviere O, Salomon G, Polascik T, Walz J, Wijkstra H, Marberger M (2012) Role of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) in focal therapy of prostate cancer: report from a consensus panel. BJU Int 110(7):942–948. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11072.x CrossRefPubMed

17.

Walz J, Graefen M, Chun FK, Erbersdobler A, Haese A, Steuber T, Schlomm T, Huland H, Karakiewicz PI (2006) High incidence of prostate cancer detected by saturation biopsy after previous negative biopsy series. Eur Urol 50(3):498–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.03.026 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Moran BJ, Braccioforte MH, Conterato DJ (2006) Re-biopsy of the prostate using a stereotactic transperineal technique. J Urol 176(4 Pt 1):1376–1381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.06.030 (discussion 1381) CrossRefPubMed

19.

Futterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P, Emberton M, Giannarini G, Kirkham A, Taneja SS, Thoeny H, Villeirs G, Villers A (2015) Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 68(6):1045–1053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.013 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, Margolis D, Schnall MD, Shtern F, Tempany CM, Thoeny HC, Verma S (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69(1):16–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Auer T, Edlinger M, Bektic J, Nagele U, Herrmann T, Schafer G, Aigner F, Junker D (2017) Performance of PI-RADS version 1 versus version 2 regarding the relation with histopathological results. World J Urol 35(5):687–693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1920-5 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Mertan FV, Greer MD, Shih JH, George AK, Kongnyuy M, Muthigi A, Merino MJ, Wood BJ, Pinto PA, Choyke PL, Turkbey B (2016) Prospective evaluation of the prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 for prostate cancer detection. J Urol 196(3):690–696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.04.057 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Simmons LAM, Kanthabalan A, Arya M, Briggs T, Barratt D, Charman SC, Freeman A, Gelister J, Hawkes D, Hu Y, Jameson C, McCartan N, Moore CM, Punwani S, Ramachandran N, van der Meulen J, Emberton M, Ahmed HU (2017) The PICTURE study: diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI in men requiring a repeat prostate biopsy. Br J Cancer 116(9):1159–1165. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2017.57 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Morgan E, Drummond FJ, Coyle C, Sharp L, Gavin AT (2017) Physical after-effects in men undergoing prostate biopsy in routine clinical practice: results from the PiCTure study. Urol Oncol 35(10):604.e611–604.e616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.06.003 CrossRef

25.

Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D, Froemming AT, Gupta RT, Turkbey B, Westphalen AC, Babb JS, Margolis DJ (2016) Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS version 2 lexicon: a multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology 280(3):793–804. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016152542 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Muller BG, Shih JH, Sankineni S, Marko J, Rais-Bahrami S, George AK, de la Rosette JJ, Merino MJ, Wood BJ, Pinto P, Choyke PL, Turkbey B (2015) Prostate cancer: interobserver agreement and accuracy with the revised prostate imaging reporting and data system at multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology 277(3):741–750. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015142818 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Keetch DW, Catalona WJ, Smith DS (1994) Serial prostatic biopsies in men with persistently elevated serum prostate specific antigen values. J Urol 151(6):1571–1574CrossRefPubMed

28.

Djavan B, Ravery V, Zlotta A, Dobronski P, Dobrovits M, Fakhari M, Seitz C, Susani M, Borkowski A, Boccon-Gibod L, Schulman CC, Marberger M (2001) Prospective evaluation of prostate cancer detected on biopsies 1, 2, 3 and 4: when should we stop? J Urol 166(5):1679–1683CrossRefPubMed

29.

Djavan B, Fong YK, Ravery V, Remzi M, Horninger W, Susani M, Kreuzer S, Boccon-Gibod L, Bartsch G, Marberger M (2005) Are repeat biopsies required in men with PSA levels ≤ 4 ng/ml? A Multiinstitutional Prospective European Study. Eur Urol 47(1):38–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2004.07.024 (discussion 44) CrossRefPubMed

Title: A 12-year follow-up of ANNA/C-TRUS image-targeted biopsies in patients suspicious for prostate cancer
Authors: Theodoros Tokas
Björn Grabski
Udo Paul
Leif Bäurle
Tillmann Loch
Publication date: 01-05-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 5/2018
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2160-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

A 12-year follow-up of ANNA/C-TRUS image-targeted biopsies in patients suspicious for prostate cancer

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2018

The inhibitory effect of sacral dorsal root ganglion stimulation on nociceptive and nonnociceptive bladder reflexes in cats

Intraoperative utilization of advanced imaging modalities in a complex kidney stone case: a pilot case study

Multiparametric ultrasound-targeted biopsy compares favorably to multiparametric MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy on initial biopsy of men at risk for prostate cancer

VPAC1-targeted PET/CT scan: improved molecular imaging for the diagnosis of prostate cancer using a novel cell surface antigen

Wide-field autofluorescence-guided TUR-B for the detection of bladder cancer: a pilot study

Prostate cancer detection in patients with prior negative biopsy undergoing cognitive-, robotic- or in-bore MRI target biopsy