Positive pre-biopsy MRI: are systematic biopsies still useful in addition to targeted biopsies?
Biopsy
Detection
Fusion
Magnetic resonance imaging
Prostate cancer
Targeted
Journal
World journal of urology
ISSN: 1433-8726
Titre abrégé: World J Urol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8307716
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2019
Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
16
04
2018
accepted:
28
06
2018
pubmed:
4
7
2018
medline:
29
5
2019
entrez:
4
7
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The diagnostic strategy implementing multiparametric magnet resonance tomography (mpMRI) and targeted biopsies (TB) improves the detection and characterization of significant prostate cancer (PCa). We aimed to assess the clinical usefulness of systematic biopsies (SB) in the setting of patients having a pre-biopsy positive MRI. A review of the literature was performed in March 2018. All studies investigating the performance of SB in addition to TB (all techniques) were assessed, both in the biopsy-naïve and repeat biopsy setting. Evidence demonstrates that TB improves the detection of index-significant PCa compared with SB alone, in both initial and repeat biopsy settings. However, the combination of both TB and SB improved the overall (around 30%) and significant (around 10%) PCa detection rates as compared with TB alone. Significant differences between both biopsy approaches exist regarding cancer location favoring SB for the far lateral sampling, and TB for the anterior zone. Main current pitfalls of pure TB strategy are the learning curve and experience required for mpMRI reading and biopsy targeting, as well as the precision assessment in TB techniques. A pure TB strategy omitting SB leads to the risk of missing up to 15% of significant cancer, due to limitations of mpMRI performance/reading and of precision during lesion targeting. SB remain necessary, in addition to the TB, to obtain the most accurate assessment of the entire prostate gland in this sub-group of patients at risk of significant disease.
Identifiants
pubmed: 29967944
doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2399-z
pii: 10.1007/s00345-018-2399-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
243-251Références
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 Nov;197(5):W876-81
pubmed: 22021535
Eur Urol. 2013 Jan;63(1):125-40
pubmed: 22743165
J Urol. 2014 Jun;191(6):1749-54
pubmed: 24333515
Eur Urol. 2014 Jul;66(1):22-9
pubmed: 24666839
J Urol. 2014 Nov;192(5):1367-73
pubmed: 24793118
J Urol. 2015 Jan;193(1):87-94
pubmed: 25079939
BJU Int. 2016 Jan;117(1):80-6
pubmed: 25099182
Eur Urol. 2015 Mar;67(3):569-76
pubmed: 25257029
Urol Oncol. 2015 Jan;33(1):17.e1-17.e7
pubmed: 25443268
J Urol. 2015 Apr;193(4):1198-204
pubmed: 25451824
JAMA. 2015 Jan 27;313(4):390-7
pubmed: 25626035
Eur Urol. 2015 Dec;68(6):1045-53
pubmed: 25656808
BJU Int. 2016 Apr;117(4):584-91
pubmed: 25684394
Nat Genet. 2015 Apr;47(4):367-372
pubmed: 25730763
Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):149-56
pubmed: 25862143
Eur Urol. 2016 Mar;69(3):419-25
pubmed: 26033153
Eur Urol. 2015 Oct;68(4):713-20
pubmed: 26116294
BJU Int. 2016 Jul;118(1):84-94
pubmed: 26198404
World J Urol. 2016 Jun;34(6):797-803
pubmed: 26481226
Cancer. 2016 Mar 15;122(6):884-92
pubmed: 26749141
Eur Urol. 2016 Nov;70(5):846-853
pubmed: 26810346
J Urol. 2016 Oct;196(4):1069-75
pubmed: 27079582
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016 Apr 29;108(9):
pubmed: 27130933
Diagn Interv Imaging. 2016 Nov;97(11):1125-1129
pubmed: 27451262
Eur Urol. 2017 Mar;71(3):353-365
pubmed: 27543165
Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):517-531
pubmed: 27568655
Eur Urol. 2017 Aug;72(2):282-288
pubmed: 27574821
BJU Int. 2017 Jul;120(1):92-103
pubmed: 27608292
World J Urol. 2017 Jul;35(7):1015-1022
pubmed: 27830373
Eur Urol. 2017 Jun;71(6):896-903
pubmed: 28063613
Lancet. 2017 Feb 25;389(10071):815-822
pubmed: 28110982
Eur Urol. 2017 Aug;72(2):250-266
pubmed: 28336078
Eur Urol Focus. 2018 Mar;4(2):219-227
pubmed: 28753777
Radiology. 2018 May;287(2):534-542
pubmed: 29361246
JAMA Oncol. 2018 May 1;4(5):678-685
pubmed: 29470570
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 10;378(19):1767-1777
pubmed: 29552975