Developments in MRI-targeted prostate biopsy.
Journal
Current opinion in urology
ISSN: 1473-6586
Titre abrégé: Curr Opin Urol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9200621
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2020
01 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
24
10
2019
medline:
8
9
2020
entrez:
24
10
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
MRI-targeted prostate biopsy may be an attractive alternative to systematic biopsy for diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer. In this narrative review, we discuss the new developments that have occurred in the advancement of MRI-targeted prostate biopsy, over the past 24 months. MRI-targeted biopsy offers enhanced diagnostic accuracy, when compared with the current standard of care of systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) biopsy, by decreasing the overall number of biopsies needed, maintaining or improving significant prostate cancer detection, and reducing the detection of clinically insignificant prostate cancer. The necessity of combining systematic prostate biopsy with MRI-targeted biopsy is still debated. The use of MRI--ultrasound fusion systems for lesion-targeting is promising for optimizing significant cancer detection, but recent evidence suggests that additional cognitive biopsy cores are still useful in detecting additional cancers. MRI-targeted biopsy in selected men with positive MRI offers a number of benefits over systematic biopsy in all men, and as such, may emerge as the new standard of care for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31644434
doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000683
pii: 00042307-202001000-00002
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1-8Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/S00680X/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. PRECISION Study Group CollaboratorsMRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018; 378:1767–1777.
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. PROMIS study groupDiagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017; 389:815–822.
Panebianco V, Barchetti G, Simone G, et al. Negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: what's next? Eur Urol 2018; 74:48–54.
Radtke JP, Wiesenfarth M, Kesch C, et al. Combined clinical parameters and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for advanced risk modeling of prostate cancer-patient-tailored risk stratification can reduce Unnecessary biopsies. Eur Urol 2017; 72:888–896.
Mehralivand S, Shih JH, Rais-Bahrami S, et al. A Magnetic resonance imaging-based prediction model for prostate biopsy risk stratification. JAMA Oncol 2018; 4:678–685.
Moldovan PC, Van den Broeck T, Sylvester R, et al. What is the negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in excluding prostate cancer at biopsy? A systematic review and meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology prostate cancer guidelines panel. Eur Urol 2017; 72:250–266.
Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, et al. ProtecT Study Group10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2016; 375:1415–1424.
Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V, Eggener S, et al. START ConsortiumStandards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. Eur Urol 2013; 64:544–552.
Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Sciarra A, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging vs. standard care in men being evaluated for prostate cancer: a randomized study. Urol Oncol 2015; 33:17e1–17e7.
Porpiglia F, Manfredi M, Mele F, et al. Diagnostic pathway with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging versus standard pathway: results from a randomized prospective study in biopsy-naïve patients with suspected prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2017; 72:282–288.
Moore CM, Robertson NL, Arsanious N, et al. Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2013; 63:125–140.
Schoots IG, Nieboer D, Giganti F, et al. Is magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy a useful addition to systematic confirmatory biopsy in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int 2018; 122:946–958.
Sonn GA, Chang E, Natarajan S, et al. Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Eur Urol 2014; 65:809–815.
Valerio M, Donaldson I, Emberton M, et al. Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2015; 68:8–19.
Tonttila PP, Lantto J, Pääkkö E, et al. Prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis in biopsy-naive men with suspected prostate cancer based on elevated prostate-specific antigen values: results from a randomized prospective blinded controlled trial. Eur Urol 2016; 69:419–425.
Wilt TJ, Jones KM, Barry MJ, et al. Follow-up of prostatectomy versus observation for early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2017; 377:132–142.
Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. ERSPC InvestigatorsScreening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:1320–1328.
Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Lane JA, et al. ProtecT Study GroupPatient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2016; 375:1425–1437.
Kasivisvanathan V, Stabile A, Neves JB, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy versus systematic biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2019; 76:284–303.
Wise J. NICE recommends MRI for suspected prostate cancer to reduce biopsies. BMJ 2018; 363:k5290.
Padhani AR, Barentsz J, Villeirs G, et al. PI-RADS steering committee: the PI-RADS multiparametric MRI and MRI-directed biopsy pathway. Radiology 2019; 292:464–474.
Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, et al. MRI-FIRST InvestigatorsUse of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 2019; 20:100–109.
van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B, et al. Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol 2019; 75:570–578.
Elwenspoek MMC, Sheppard AL, McInnes MDF, et al. Comparison of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy with systematic biopsy alone for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open 2019; 2:e198427.
Klotz L, Loblaw A, Sugar L, et al. Active surveillance magnetic resonance imaging study (ASIST): results of a randomized multicenter prospective trial. Eur Urol 2019; 75:300–309.
Wegelin O, van Melick HH, Hooft L. Comparing three different techniques for magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsies: a systematic review of in-bore versus magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion versus cognitive registration. Is there a preferred technique? Eur Urol 2017; 71:517–553.
Wegelin O, Exterkate L, van der Leest M, et al. The FUTURE trial: a multicenter randomised controlled trial on target biopsy techniques based on magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol 2019; 75:582–590.
Hamid S, Donaldson IA, Hu Y, et al. The SmartTarget biopsy trial: a prospective, within-person randomised, blinded trial comparing the accuracy of visual-registration and magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound image-fusion targeted biopsies for prostate cancer risk stratification. Eur Urol 2019; 75:733–740.
Simmons LAM, Kanthabalan A, Arya M, et al. Accuracy of transperineal targeted prostate biopsies, visual estimation and image fusion in men needing repeat biopsy in the PICTURE Trial. J Urol 2018; 200:1227–1234.
Bryk DJ, Llukani E, Taneja SS, et al. The role of ipsilateral and contralateral transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic prostate biopsy in men with unilateral magnetic resonance imaging lesion undergoing magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy. Urology 2017; 102:178–182.
Muthigi A, George AK, Sidana A, et al. Missing the mark: prostate cancer upgrading by systematic biopsy over magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. J Urol 2017; 197:327–334.
Lu AJ, Syed JS, Ghabili K, et al. Role of core number and location in targeted magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 2019; 76:14–17.
Zhang M, Milot L, Khalvati F, et al. Value of increasing biopsy cores per target with cognitive MRI-targeted transrectal US prostate biopsy. Radiology 2019; 291:83–89.
Dimitroulis P, Rabenalt R, Nini A, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy-are 2 biopsy cores per magnetic resonance imaging lesion required? J Urol 2018; 200:1030–1034.
Calio BP, Sidana A, Sugano D, et al. Risk of upgrading from prostate biopsy to radical prostatectomy pathology-does saturation biopsy of index lesion during multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy help? J Urol 2018; 199:976–982.
Gatti M, Faletti R, Calleris G, et al. Prostate cancer detection with biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) by readers with different experience: performance and comparison with multiparametric (mpMRI). Abdom Radiol (NY) 2019; 44:1883–1893.
Gaziev G, Wadhwa K, Barrett T, et al. Defining the learning curve for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate using MRI-transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) fusion-guided transperineal prostate biopsies as a validation tool. BJU Int 2016; 117:80–86.
Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang R, et al. The institutional learning curve of magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted prostate biopsy: temporal improvements in cancer detection in 4 years. J Urol 2018; 200:1022–1029.
Kasabwala K, Patel N, Cricco-Lizza E, et al. The learning curve for magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy. Eur Urol Oncol 2019; 2:135–140.
Emberton M. Dropping the GAD - just a fad? The case for a simpler, quicker, safer and cheaper prostate magnetic resonance imaging. BJU Int 2019; 124:183–184.
Fascelli M, Rais-Bahrami S, Sankineni S, et al. Combined biparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen in the detection of prostate cancer: a validation study in a biopsy-naive patient population. Urology 2016; 88:125–134.
Boesen L, Nørgaard N, Løgager V, et al. Assessment of the diagnostic accuracy of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men: the biparametric MRI for detection of prostate cancer (BIDOC) Study. JAMA Netw Open 2018; 1:e180219.
Jambor I, Verho J, Ettala O, et al. Validation of IMPROD biparametric MRI in men with clinically suspected prostate cancer: a prospective multiinstitutional trial. PLoS Med 2019; 16:e1002813.
Alabousi M, Salameh JP, Gusenbauer K, et al. Biparametric vs multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of prostate cancer in treatment-naïve patients: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int 2019; 124:209–220.