Top

Published in:

01-04-2012 | Original Article

MRI-guided prostate biopsy detects clinically significant cancer: analysis of a cohort of 100 patients after previous negative TRUS biopsy

Authors: M. Roethke, A. G. Anastasiadis, M. Lichy, M. Werner, P. Wagner, S. Kruck, Claus D. Claussen, A. Stenzl, H. P. Schlemmer, D. Schilling

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 2/2012

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the positive biopsy rate of MRI-guided biopsy (MR-GB) in a routine clinical setting, identify factors predictive for positive biopsy findings and to report about the clinical significance of the diagnosed tumors.

Methods

Patients with at least one negative trans-rectal-ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-GB), persistently elevated or rising serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) and at least one lesion suspicious for PCa on diagnostic 1.5 Tesla endorectal coil MRI (eMR) were included. Biopsies were carried out using a 1.5 Tesla MRI and an 18 G biopsy gun. Clinical information and biopsy results were collected; logistic regression analysis was carried out. Definite pathology reports of patients with diagnosis of PCa and subsequent radical prostatectomy (RP) were analyzed for criteria of clinical significance.

Results

One hundred patients were included, mean number of previous biopsies was 2 (range 1–9), mean PSA at time of biopsy was 11.7 ng/ml (1.0–65.0), and mean prostate volume was 46.7 ccm (range 13–183).

In 52/100 (52.0%) patients, PCa was detected. Out of 52 patients, 27 patients with a positive biopsy underwent RP, 20 patients radiation therapy, and 5 patients active surveillance. In total, 80.8% of the patients revealed a clinically significant PCa.

In univariate regression analysis, only serum PSA levels were predictive for a positive biopsy result. Number of preceding negative biopsies was not associated with the likelihood of a positive biopsy result.

Conclusions

MR-GB shows a high detection rate of clinically significant PCa in patients with previous negative TRUS-GB and persisting suspicion for PCa.

Ahmed HU, Kirkham A, Arya M et al (2009) Is it time to consider a role for MRI before prostate biopsy? Nat Rev Clin Oncol 6:197–206PubMedCrossRef

Amsellem-Ouazana D, Younes P, Conquy S et al (2005) Negative prostatic biopsies in patients with a high risk of prostate cancer. Is the combination of endorectal MRI and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging (MRSI) a useful tool? A preliminary study. Eur Urol 47:582–586PubMedCrossRef

Anastasiadis AG, Lichy MP, Nagele U et al (2006) MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate increases diagnostic performance in men with elevated or increasing PSA levels after previous negative TRUS biopsies. Eur Urol 50:738–748PubMedCrossRef

Beyersdorff D, Winkel A, Hamm B et al (2005) MR imaging-guided prostate biopsy with a closed MR unit at 1.5 T: initial results. Radiology 234:576–581PubMedCrossRef

Colleselli D, Schilling D, Lichy MP et al (2010) Topographical sensitivity and specificity of endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection. Urol Int 84:388–394PubMedCrossRef

Deliveliotis C, Varkarakis J, Albanis S et al (2002) Biopsies of the transitional zone of the prostate. Should it be done on a routine basis, when and why? Urol Int 68:113–117PubMedCrossRef

Djavan B, Milani S, Remzi M (2005) Prostate biopsy: who, how and when. An update. Can J Urol 12(Suppl 1):44–48PubMed

Engelhard K, Hollenbach HP, Kiefer B et al (2006) Prostate biopsy in the supine position in a standard 1.5-T scanner under real time MR-imaging control using a MR-compatible endorectal biopsy device. Eur Radiol 16:1237–1243PubMedCrossRef

Fradet V, Kurhanewicz J, Cowan JE et al (2010) Prostate cancer managed with active surveillance: role of anatomic MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 256:176–183PubMedCrossRef

10.

Hambrock T, Futterer JJ, Huisman HJ et al (2008) Thirty-two-channel coil 3T magnetic resonance-guided biopsies of prostate tumor suspicious regions identified on multimodality 3T magnetic resonance imaging: technique and feasibility. Invest Radiol 43:686–694PubMedCrossRef

11.

Hambrock T, Somford DM, Hoeks C et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. J Urol 183:520–527PubMedCrossRef

12.

Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M et al (2008) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol 53:68–80PubMedCrossRef

13.

Labanaris AP, Zugor V, Smiszek R et al (2010) Guided e-MRI prostate biopsy can solve the discordance between Gleason score biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Magn Reson Imaging 28:943–946PubMedCrossRef

14.

Lichy MP, Pintaske J, Kottke R et al (2005) 3D proton MR spectroscopic imaging of prostate cancer using a standard spine coil at 1.5 T in clinical routine: a feasibility study. Eur Radiol 15:653–660PubMedCrossRef

15.

Lujan M, Paez A, Santonja C et al (2004) Prostate cancer detection and tumor characteristics in men with multiple biopsy sessions. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 7:238–242PubMedCrossRef

16.

McNeal JE (1969) Origin and development of carcinoma in the prostate. Cancer 23:24–34PubMedCrossRef

17.

Norberg M, Egevad L, Holmberg L et al (1997) The sextant protocol for ultrasound-guided core biopsies of the prostate underestimates the presence of cancer. Urology 50:562–566PubMedCrossRef

18.

Pallwein L, Mitterberger M, Pelzer A et al (2008) Ultrasound of prostate cancer: recent advances. Eur Radiol 18:707–715PubMedCrossRef

19.

Park BK, Lee HM, Kim CK et al (2008) Lesion localization in patients with a previous negative transrectal ultrasound biopsy and persistently elevated prostate specific antigen level using diffusion-weighted imaging at three Tesla before rebiopsy. Invest Radiol 43:789–793PubMedCrossRef

20.

Roethke MC, Lichy MP, Jurgschat L, et al. (2010) Tumorsize dependent detection rate of endorectal MRI of prostate cancer—A histopathologic correlation with whole-mount sections in 70 patients with prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol

21.

Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ et al (2009) Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 360:1320–1328PubMedCrossRef

22.

Sciarra A, Panebianco V, Ciccariello M et al (2010) Value of magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging for detecting prostate cancer foci in men with prior negative biopsy. Clin Cancer Res 16:1875–1883PubMedCrossRef

23.

Umbehr M, Bachmann LM, Held U et al (2009) Combined magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 55:575–590PubMedCrossRef

24.

Uzzo RG, Wei JT, Waldbaum RS et al (1995) The influence of prostate size on cancer detection. Urology 46:831–836PubMedCrossRef

25.

Yuen JS, Thng CH, Tan PH et al (2004) Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for the detection of tumor foci in men with prior negative transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy. J Urol 171:1482–1486PubMedCrossRef

26.

Zackrisson B, Aus G, Bergdahl S et al (2004) The risk of finding focal cancer (less than 3 mm) remains high on re-biopsy of patients with persistently increased prostate specific antigen but the clinical significance is questionable. J Urol 171:1500–1503PubMedCrossRef

27.

Zakian KL, Sircar K, Hricak H et al (2005) Correlation of proton MR spectroscopic imaging with gleason score based on step-section pathologic analysis after radical prostatectomy. Radiology 234:804–814PubMedCrossRef

28.

Zangos S, Eichler K, Engelmann K et al (2005) MR-guided transgluteal biopsies with an open low-field system in patients with clinically suspected prostate cancer: technique and preliminary results. Eur Radiol 15:174–182PubMedCrossRef

Title: MRI-guided prostate biopsy detects clinically significant cancer: analysis of a cohort of 100 patients after previous negative TRUS biopsy
Authors: M. Roethke
A. G. Anastasiadis
M. Lichy
M. Werner
P. Wagner
S. Kruck
Claus D. Claussen
A. Stenzl
H. P. Schlemmer
D. Schilling
Publication date: 01-04-2012
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 2/2012
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0675-2

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

MRI-guided prostate biopsy detects clinically significant cancer: analysis of a cohort of 100 patients after previous negative TRUS biopsy

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2012

Randomized controlled screening trials for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen: a tale of contrasts

Prospective blinded comparison of real-time sonoelastography targeted versus randomised biopsy of the prostate in the primary and re-biopsy setting

The effects of warm ischaemia time on renal function after laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in patients with normal contralateral kidney

Evaluating the PCPT risk calculator in ten international biopsy cohorts: results from the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group

Risk factors of treatment failure after retrourethral transobturator male sling

Is it suitable to eliminate bone scan for prostate cancer patients with PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL?