Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Original Article

Retrospective comparison of direct in-bore magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy and fusion-guided biopsy in patients with MRI lesions which are likely or highly likely to be clinically significant prostate cancer

Authors: Wulphert Venderink, Marloes van der Leest, Annemarijke van Luijtelaar, Wendy J. M. van de Ven, Jurgen J. Fütterer, J. P. Michiel Sedelaar, Henkjan J. Huisman

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 12/2017

Abstract

Purpose

To compare clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection rates between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion-guided prostate biopsy (FGB) and direct in-bore MRI-guided biopsy (MRGB).

Methods

We performed a comparison of csPCa detection rates between FGB and MRGB. Included patients had (1) at least one prior negative TRUS biopsy; (2) a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 4 or 5 lesion and (3) a lesion size of ≥8 mm measured in at least one direction. We considered a Gleason score ≥7 being csPCa. Descriptive statistics with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to determine any differences.

Results

We included 51 patients with FGB (59 PI-RADS 4 and 41% PI-RADS 5) and 227 patients with MRGB (34 PI-RADS 4 and 66% PI-RADS 5). Included patients had a median age of 69 years (IQR, 65–72) and a median PSA level of 11.0 ng/ml (IQR, 7.4–15.1) and a median age of 67 years (IQR, 61–70), the median PSA 12.8 ng/ml (IQR, 9.1–19.0) within the FGB and the MRGB group, respectively. Detection rates of csPCA did not differ significantly between FGB and MRGB, 49 vs. 61%, respectively.

Conclusion

We did not detect significant differences between FGB and MRGB in the detection of csPCa. The differences in detection ratios between both biopsy techniques are narrow with an increasing lesion size. This study warrants further studies to optimize selection of best biopsy modality.

Kirkham AP, Emberton M, Allen C (2006) How good is MRI at detecting and characterising cancer within the prostate? Eur Urol 50(6):1163–1174. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2006.06.025 (discussion 1175) CrossRefPubMed

Sciarra A, Barentsz J, Bjartell A, Eastham J, Hricak H, Panebianco V, Witjes JA (2011) Advances in magnetic resonance imaging: how they are changing the management of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 59(6):962–977. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2011.02.034 CrossRefPubMed

Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, Mason M, Matveev V, Wiegel T, Zattoni F, Mottet N, European Association of U (2014) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 65(1):124–137. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.09.046 CrossRefPubMed

Schouten MG, van der Leest M, Pokorny M, Hoogenboom M, Barentsz JO, Thompson LC, Futterer JJ (2017) Why and where do we miss significant prostate cancer with multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging followed by magnetic resonance-guided and transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in biopsy-naive men? Eur Urol. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2016.12.006 PubMed

Felker ER, Lee-Felker SA, Feller J, Margolis DJ, Lu DS, Princenthal R, May S, Cohen M, Huang J, Yoshida J, Greenwood B, Kim HJ, Raman SS (2016) In-bore magnetic resonance-guided transrectal biopsy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol (New York) 41(5):954–962. doi:10.1007/s00261-016-0750-7 CrossRef

Pokorny MR, de Rooij M, Duncan E, Schroder FH, Parkinson R, Barentsz JO, Thompson LC (2014) Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. Eur Urol 66(1):22–29. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.03.002 CrossRefPubMed

Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George AK, Rothwax J, Shakir N, Okoro C, Raskolnikov D, Parnes HL, Linehan WM, Merino MJ, Simon RM, Choyke PL, Wood BJ, Pinto PA (2015) Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 313(4):390–397. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.17942 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Abd-Alazeez M, Kirkham A, Ahmed HU, Arya M, Anastasiadis E, Charman SC, Freeman A, Emberton M (2014) Performance of multiparametric MRI in men at risk of prostate cancer before the first biopsy: a paired validating cohort study using template prostate mapping biopsies as the reference standard. Prostate Cancer Prost Dis 17(1):40–46. doi:10.1038/pcan.2013.43 CrossRef

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. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.013 CrossRefPubMed

10.

van de Ven WJ, Hu Y, Barentsz JO, Karssemeijer N, Barratt D, Huisman HJ (2015) Biomechanical modeling constrained surface-based image registration for prostate MR guided TRUS biopsy. Med Phys 42(5):2470–2481. doi:10.1118/1.4917481 CrossRefPubMed

11.

van de Ven WJ, Sedelaar JP, van der Leest MM, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Barentsz JO, Futterer JJ, Huisman HJ (2016) Visibility of prostate cancer on transrectal ultrasound during fusion with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for biopsy. Clin Imaging 40(4):745–750. doi:10.1016/j.clinimag.2016.02.005 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Blondin D, Quentin M, Hiester A, Godehardt E, Gabbert HE, Becker N, Antoch G, Albers P, Schimmoller L (2015) Prospective randomized trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided in-bore biopsy to MRI-ultrasound fusion and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol 68(4):713–720. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.008 CrossRefPubMed

13.

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. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, Rouviere O, Logager V, Futterer JJ, European Society of Urogenital R (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22(4):746–757. doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Maxeiner A, Stephan C, Durmus T, Slowinski T, Cash H, Fischer T (2015) Added value of multiparametric ultrasonography in magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography fusion-guided biopsy of the prostate in patients with suspicion for prostate cancer. Urology 86(1):108–114. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2015.01.055 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Postema A, Mischi M, de la Rosette J, Wijkstra H (2015) Multiparametric ultrasound in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review. World J Urol 33(11):1651–1659. doi:10.1007/s00345-015-1523-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Retrospective comparison of direct in-bore magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy and fusion-guided biopsy in patients with MRI lesions which are likely or highly likely to be clinically significant prostate cancer
Authors: Wulphert Venderink
Marloes van der Leest
Annemarijke van Luijtelaar
Wendy J. M. van de Ven
Jurgen J. Fütterer
J. P. Michiel Sedelaar
Henkjan J. Huisman
Publication date: 01-12-2017
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 12/2017
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2085-6

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Retrospective comparison of direct in-bore magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy and fusion-guided biopsy in patients with MRI lesions which are likely or highly likely to be clinically significant prostate cancer

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 12/2017

‘Real-life experience’: recurrence rate at 3 years with Hexvix® photodynamic diagnosis-assisted TURBT compared with good quality white light TURBT in new NMIBC—a prospective controlled study

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards prostate cancer screening amongst men living in the southern Italian peninsula: the Prevention and Research in Oncology (PRO) non-profit Foundation experience

Radical cystectomy for recurrent urothelial carcinoma after prior partial cystectomy: perioperative and oncologic outcomes

Marital status and gender affect stage, tumor grade, treatment type and cancer specific mortality in T1–2 N0 M0 renal cell carcinoma

SIU_Newsletter_December_2017

Cytoreductive nephrectomy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the era of targeted therapy: a bibliographic review