Top

World Journal of Urology

Published in:

01-08-2019 | Original Article

Outcomes of magnetic resonance imaging fusion-targeted biopsy of prostate imaging reporting and data system 3 lesions

Authors: Tae Jin Kim, Min Seung Lee, Sung Il Hwang, Hak Jong Lee, Sung Kyu Hong

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 8/2019

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the characteristics and histological outcomes in patients with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3 lesions undergoing magnetic resonance imaging-guided fusion-targeted biopsy (MRIFTB).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 138 patients with PI-RADS category 3 lesions classified using multiparametric MRI who underwent MRIFTB between May 2016 and March 2018. The study population included biopsy-naïve and patients with prior negative biopsy. Univariate and multivariate analyzes were performed to determine significant predictors of prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). The definition of csPCa was set at Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4.

Results

Overall, 114 (82.6%) biopsied lesions were benign and 24 (17.4%) were identified as prostate cancer. Of these 24 lesions, 14 (58.3%) harbored csPCa. Peripheral zone (PZ) lesions were more likely to be associated with malignant disease than transition zone lesions (13.7 vs. 6.2%). Multivariate logistic analysis revealed that age, PZ location, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density (P < 0.05) were independent predictors of both PCa and csPCa.

Conclusions

A non-negligible number of PI-RADS 3 patients harbor csPCa. Moreover, age, lesion location, and PSA density could be potential clinical predictors of PCa and csPCa. Physicians should be aware of the cancer prevalence of PI-RADS 3 lesions, as the use of the aforementioned factors can help in the decision-making process for these patients.

Center MM, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulent J et al (2012) International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol 61:1079–1092PubMed

Trabulsi EJ, Halpern EJ, Gomella LG (2011) Ultrasonography and biopsy of the prostate. In: Wein AJ (ed) Campbell–Walsh urology, 10th edn. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 2735–2747

Pinkhasov GI, Lin Y-K, Palmerola R et al (2012) Complications following prostate needle biopsy requiring hospital admission or emergency department visits—experience from 1000 consecutive cases. BJU Int 110:369–374CrossRefPubMed

Zaytoun OM, Anil T, Moussa AS, Jianbo L, Fareed K, Jones JS (2011) Morbidity of prostate biopsy after simplified versus complex preparation protocols: assessment of risk factors. Urology 77:910–914CrossRefPubMed

Bjurlin MA, Meng X, Le Nobin J, Wysock JS, Lepor H et al (2014) Optimization of prostate biopsy: the role of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in detection, localization and risk assessment. J Urol 192:648–658CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hassanzadeh E, Glazer DI, Dunne RM, Fennessy FM, Harisinghani MG et al (2016) Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 (PI-RADS v2): a pictorial review. Abdom Radiol (NY) 42:278–289CrossRef

Hamoen EH, de Rooij M, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM (2015) Use of the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) for prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 67:1112–1121CrossRefPubMed

AdMetech Foundation (2015) PI‑RADSv2: prostate imaging and reporting and data system. https://www.acr.org/‑/media/ACR/Files/RADS/Pi‑RADS/PIRADS‑V2.pdf. Accessed 30 Jan 2018.

Tewes S, Mokov N, Hartung D, Schick V, Peters I et al (2016) Standardized reporting of prostate MRI: comparison of the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) version 1 and version 2. PLoS One 11:e0162879CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging-reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69:16–40CrossRefPubMed

11.

Schieda N, Quon JS, Lim C, El-Khodary M, Shabana W et al (2015) Evaluation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) PI-RADS scoring system for assessment of extra-prostatic extension in prostatic carcinoma. Eur J Radiol 84:1843–1848CrossRefPubMed

12.

Mertan FV, Greer MD, Shih JH, George AK, Kongnyuy M et al (2016) Prospective evaluation of the prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 for prostate cancer detection. J Urol 196:690–696CrossRefPubMed

13.

Vargas HA, Hotker AM, Goldman DA, Moskowitz CS, Gondo T et al (2016) Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference. Eur Radiol 26:1606–1612CrossRefPubMed

14.

Alberts A, Roobol M, Drost FJ et al (2017) PSA-density based patient selection for MRI-targeted prostate biopsy could reduce unnecessary biopsy procedures in men on active surveillance for low-grade prostate cancer. Eur Urol Suppl 16:e856CrossRef

15.

Rosenkrantz AB, Babb JS, Taneja SS, Ream JM (2017) Proposed adjustments to PI-RADS version 2 decision rules: impact on prostate cancer detection. Radiology 283:119e29CrossRef

16.

Hoeks CMA, Hambrock T, Yakar D, Hulsbergen-van CA, de Kaa T, Feuth JA Witjes et al (2013) Transition zone prostate cancer: detection and localization with 3-T multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology 266(1):207–217CrossRefPubMed

17.

Yoshizako T, Wada A, Hayashi T, Uchida K, Sumura M, Uchida N et al (2008) Usefulness of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate transition zone cancer. Acta Radiol 49(1207):1213

18.

Veneziano S, Pavlica P, Compagnone G, Martorana G (2005) Usefulness of the (F/T)/PSA density ratio to detect prostate cancer. Urol Int 74:13–18CrossRefPubMed

19.

De Castro HAS, Iared W, Shigueoka DC, Mourão JE, Ajzen S (2011) Contribution of PSA density in the prediction of prostate cancer in patients with PSA values between 2.6 and 10.0 ng/ml. Radiol Bras 44 205:209

20.

Kundu SD, Roehl KA, Yu X, Antenor JAV, Suarez BK, Catalona WJ (2007) Prostate specific antigen density correlates with features of prostate cancer aggressiveness. J Urol 177:505–509CrossRefPubMed

21.

Bastian PJ, Mangold LA, Epstein JI, Partin AW (2004) Characteristics of insignificant clinical T1c prostate tumors—a contemporary analysis. Cancer 101:2001–2005CrossRefPubMed

22.

Kosaka T, Mizuno R, Shinojima T et al (2014) The implications of prostate specific antigen density to predict clinically significant prostate cancer in men ≤ 50 years. Am J Clin Exp Urol 2:332–336PubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Cash H, Maxeiner A, Stephan C, Fischer T, Durmus T et al (2016) The detection of significant prostate cancer is correlated with the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) in MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. World J Urol 34:525–532CrossRefPubMed

24.

Hansen N, Patruno G, Wadhwa K et al (2016) Magnetic resonance and ultrasound image fusion supported transperineal prostate biopsy using the ginsburg protocol: technique, learning points, and biopsy results. Eur Urol 70:332–340CrossRefPubMed

25.

Schoots IG, Osses DF, Drost FH et al (2018) Safe reduction of MRI-targeted biopsies in men with low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance by stratifying to PI-RADS and PSA-density, with different thresholds for significant disease. Transl Androl Urol. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2017.12.29 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Delongchamps NB, Peyromaure M, Schull A et al (2013) Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer detection: comparison of random and targeted biopsies. J Urol 189:493–499CrossRefPubMed

27.

Park BK, Park JW, Park SY et al (2011) Prospective evaluation of 3-T MRI performed before initial transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with high prostate-specific antigen and no previous biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:W876–W881CrossRefPubMed

28.

Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC et al (2014) A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS Trial. Eur Urol 66:343–351CrossRefPubMed

Title: Outcomes of magnetic resonance imaging fusion-targeted biopsy of prostate imaging reporting and data system 3 lesions
Authors: Tae Jin Kim
Min Seung Lee
Sung Il Hwang
Hak Jong Lee
Sung Kyu Hong
Publication date: 01-08-2019
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 8/2019
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2565-3

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Outcomes of magnetic resonance imaging fusion-targeted biopsy of prostate imaging reporting and data system 3 lesions

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2019

Salvage lymphadenectomy in recurrent prostate cancer: is there evidence of real benefit?

Complications and functional outcomes of high-risk patient with cardiovascular disease on antithrombotic medication treated with the 532-nm-laser photo-vaporization Greenlight XPS-180 W for benign prostate hyperplasia

Prospective evaluation of the performances of narrow-band imaging flexible videoscopy relative to white-light imaging flexible videoscopy, in patients scheduled for transurethral resection of a primary NMIBC

Is it worth to perform salvage radical prostatectomy for radio-recurrent prostate cancer? A literature review

Recurrence in prostate cancer: salvage diagnostic and therapeutic strategies

68Ga-PSMA PET/CT-based metastasis-directed radiotherapy for oligometastatic prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy