Magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasonography fusion targeted prostate biopsy finds more significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naïve Japanese men compared with the standard biopsy.
cancer detection rate
clinically significant cancer
magnetic resonance imaging
prostate cancer
targeted biopsy
Journal
International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association
ISSN: 1442-2042
Titre abrégé: Int J Urol
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 9440237
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2020
Feb 2020
Historique:
received:
08
04
2019
accepted:
06
10
2019
pubmed:
17
11
2019
medline:
28
4
2021
entrez:
17
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To assess the clinical benefits of magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy for biopsy-naïve Japanese men. Between February 2017 and August 2018, 131 biopsy-naïve men who underwent targeted biopsy together with 10-core systematic biopsy at Hiroshima University Hospital were retrospectively investigated. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings were reported based on Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2. The overall cancer detection rates per patient were 69.5% in systematic biopsy + targeted biopsy cores, 61.1% in systematic biopsy cores and 61.1% in targeted biopsy cores. The detection rates for clinically significant prostate cancer were 43.5% in targeted biopsy cores and 35.9% in systematic biopsy cores (P = 0.04), whereas the detection rates for clinically insignificant prostate cancer were 17.6% and 25.2% respectively (P = 0.04). Lesions in the peripheral zone were diagnosed more with clinically significant prostate cancer (54.8% vs 20.7%, P < 0.001) and International Society of Urological Pathology grade (3.2 vs 2.7, P = 0.02) than that in the inner gland. Just 4.2% (3/71) of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System category 2 and 3 lesions in the middle or base of the inner gland were found to have clinically significant prostate cancer. The cancer detection rate per core was 42.3% in targeted biopsy cores, whereas it was 17.9% in systematic biopsy cores (P < 0.001). Targeted biopsy is able to improve the diagnostic accuracy of biopsy in detection of clinically significant prostate cancer by reducing the number of clinically insignificant prostate cancer detections compared with 10-core systematic biopsy in biopsy-naïve Japanese men. In addition, the present findings suggest that patients with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System category 2 or 3 lesions at the middle or base of the inner gland might avoid biopsies.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
140-146Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Japanese Urological Association.
Références
Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 2015; 313: 390-7.
Wu J, Ji A, Xie B, et al. Is magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy better than systematic prostate biopsy? An updated meta- and trial sequential analysis. Oncotarget 2015; 6: 43571-80.
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.
Yamada Y, Fujihara A, Shiraishi T, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy using three-dimensional ultrasound-based organ-tracking technology: Initial experience in Japan. Int. J. Urol. 2019; 26: 544-9.
Rosenkrantz AB, Verma S, Choyke P, et al. prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a prior negative biopsy : a consensus statement by AUA and SAR. J. Urol. 2016; 196: 1613-8.
Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, Hooft L, et al. 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: 517-31.
Hambrock T, Somford DM, Hoeks C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. J. Urol. 2010; 183: 520-7.
Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Manenti G, et al. MR imaging-guided prostate biopsy: technical features and preliminary results. Radiol. Med. 2015; 120: 571-8.
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur. Radiol. 2012; 22: 746-57.
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur. Urol. 2016; 69: 16-40.
Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Verma S, et al. Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 guidelines for multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and recommendations for use. Eur. Urol. 2016; 69: 41-9.
Lacetera V, Cervelli B, Cicetti A, et al. MRI/US fusion prostate biopsy: our initial experience. Arch. Ital. Urol. Androl. 2016; 88: 296-9.
National Cancer Institute. Protocol Development, Adverse Events/CTCAE, 2019. [Cited 7 Mar 2019.] Available from URL: https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/ctc.htm#ctc_50
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confi rmatory study. Lancet 2017; 389: 815-22.
Delongchamps NB, Peyromaure M, Schull A, et al. Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer detection: comparison of random and targeted biopsies. J. Urol. 2013; 189: 493-9.
Maxeiner A, Stephan C, Fischer T, et al. Real-time MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy in biopsy-naive and pre-biopsied patients with suspicion for prostate cancer. Aktuelle Urol. 2015; 46: 34-8.
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018; 378: 1767-77.
Maxeiner A, Kittner B, Blobel C, et al. Primary magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion-guided biopsy of the prostate. BJU Int. 2018; 122: 211-8.
Baco E, Rud E, Eri LM, et al. A randomized controlled trial to assess and compare the outcomes of two-core prostate biopsy guided by fused magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound images and traditional 12-core systematic biopsy. Eur. Urol. 2016; 69: 149-56.
Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient values in peripheral and transition zones of the prostate: comparison between normal and malignant prostatic tissues and correlation with histologic grade. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2008; 28: 720-6.
Gupta RT, Kauffman CR, Garcia-Reyes K, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient values of the benign central zone of the prostate: comparison with low- and high-grade prostate cancer. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2015; 205: 331-6.
Syed JS, Nguyen KA, Nawaf CB, et al. Prostate zonal anatomy correlates with the detection of prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy in patients with a solitary PI-RADS v2-scored lesion. Urol. Oncol. 2017; 35: 542.e19-542.e24.
Grignon DJ, Sakr WA. Zonal origin of prostatic adenocarcinoma: are there biologic differences between transition zone and peripheral zone adenocarcinomas of the prostate gland? J. Cell. Biochem. Suppl. 1994; 19: 267-9.
Shannon BA, McNeal JE, Cohen RJ. Transition zone carcinoma of the prostate gland: a common indolent tumour type that occasionally manifests aggressive behaviour. Pathology 2003; 35: 467-71.
Asvadi NH, Afshari Mirak S, Mohammadian Bajgiran A, et al. 3T multiparametric MR imaging, PIRADSv2-based detection of index prostate cancer lesions in the transition zone and the peripheral zone using whole mount histopathology as reference standard. Abdom. Radiol. (NY) 2018; 43: 3117-24.
Steuber T, Karakiewicz PI, Augustin H, et al. Transition zone cancers undermine the predictive accuracy of Partin table stage predictions. J. Urol. 2005; 173: 737-41.
Noguchi M, Stamey TA, Neal JE, et al. An analysis of 148 consecutive transition zone cancers: clinical and histological characteristics. J. Urol. 2000; 163: 1751-5.
Wang NN, Fan RE, Leppert JT, et al. Performance of multiparametric MRI appears better when measured in patients who undergo radical prostatectomy. Res. Rep. Urol. 2018; 10: 233-5.
Ukimura O, Desai MM, Palmer S, et al. 3-Dimensional elastic registration system of prostate biopsy location by real-time 3-dimensional transrectal ultrasound guidance with magnetic resonance/transrectal ultrasound image fusion. J. Urol. 2012; 187: 1080-6.
Hale GR, Czarniecki M, Cheng A, et al. Comparison of elastic and rigid registration during magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy: a multi-operator phantom study. J. Urol. 2018; 200: 1114-21.