Review article: MRI-targeted biopsies for prostate cancer diagnosis and management.
MRI prostate
MRI-targeted biopsy
Prostate biopsy
Prostate cancer diagnostics
Journal
World journal of urology
ISSN: 1433-8726
Titre abrégé: World J Urol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8307716
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2021
Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
28
11
2019
accepted:
25
03
2020
pubmed:
8
4
2020
medline:
6
8
2021
entrez:
8
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy has been the traditional biopsy route in the detection of prostate cancer. However, due to concern regarding overdetection of low-risk cancer and missed clinically significant cancers as well as risk of sepsis, alternative approaches have been explored. Transperineal template biopsy-sampling the gland every 5 m to 10 mm-reduces error by sampling the whole prostate but increases risk of detecting clinically insignificant cancers as well as conferring risks of side effects such as urinary retention and bleeding. There are various targeted biopsy techniques, each with different cancer detection rates, costs and learning curves. Current research focuses on refining biopsy methodology to maximize detection of significant cancers, whilst minimising invasiveness and complications. In this article, the up-to-date research data about MRI-targeted prostate biopsy were reviewed to show its utilization in prostate cancer management and diagnosis. Prostate multiparametric MRI has become an effective tool in the detection of significant cancers and an essential component of the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway incorporating MRI-guided biopsy decisions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32253585
doi: 10.1007/s00345-020-03182-3
pii: 10.1007/s00345-020-03182-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
57-63Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 204998/Z/16/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Drost FH, Osses DF, Nieboer D et al (2019) Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD012663
pubmed: 31022301
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M et al (2018) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 378:1767–1777. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
pubmed: 29552975
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389:815–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B et al (2019) 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 mu. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023
pubmed: 31818520
Moldovan PC, Van den Broeck T, Sylvester R et al (2017) 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.02.026
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.02.026
pubmed: 28336078
Kasivisvanathan V, Stabile A, Neves JB et al (2019) Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy versus systematic biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 76(3):284–303
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.04.043
Wegelin O, Exterkate L, van der Leest M et al (2019) 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.040
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.040
pubmed: 30522912
Simmons Lucy AM, Kanthabalan A, Arya M et al (2018) Accuracy of transperineal targeted prostate biopsies, visual estimation and image fusion in men needing repeat biopsy in the picture trial. J Urol 200:1227–1234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.07.001
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.07.001
pubmed: 30017964
Gaziev G, Wadhwa K, Barrett T et al (2016) 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 117:80–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12892
doi: 10.1111/bju.12892
pubmed: 25099182
Exterkate L, Wegelin O, Van Melick H et al (2018) 624—The Future trial: a RCT on MRI targeted prostate biopsy. Comparison of targeted and systematic biopsy outcomes. Eur Urol Suppl 17:e896–e897. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1569-9056(18)31459-3
doi: 10.1016/S1569-9056(18)31459-3
Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B (2015) Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 313:390–397. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.17942
doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.17942
pubmed: 25626035
pmcid: 4572575
Hansen NL, Barrett T, Kesch C et al (2018) Multicentre evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging supported transperineal prostate biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer. BJU Int 122:40–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14049
doi: 10.1111/bju.14049
pubmed: 29024425
Haffner J, Lemaitre L, Puech P et al (2011) Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. BJU Int 108:E171–E178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10112.x
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10112.x
pubmed: 21426475
Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R et al (2019) Use 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 20:100–109
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2
Borghesi M, Ahmed H, Nam R et al (2017) Complications after systematic, random, and image-guided prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 71:353–365
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.004
Simsir A, Kismali E, Mammadov R et al (2010) Is it possible to predict sepsis, the most serious complication in prostate biopsy? Urol Int 84:395–399
doi: 10.1159/000296290
Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D et al (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging–targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 68:438–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.037
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.037
pubmed: 25480312
Radtke JP, Kuru TH, Boxler S et al (2015) Comparative analysis of transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy with magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion guidance. J Urol 193:87–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.07.098
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.07.098
pubmed: 25079939
Giganti F, Moore CM (2017) A critical comparison of techniques for MRI-targeted biopsy of the prostate. Transl Androl Urol 6(3):432
doi: 10.21037/tau.2017.03.77
Calio B, Sidana A, Sugano D et al (2017) Changes in prostate cancer detection rate of MRI-TRUS fusion vs systematic biopsy over time: evidence of a learning curve. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 20:436
doi: 10.1038/pcan.2017.34
Puech P, Rouvière O, Renard-Penna R et al (2013) Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric mr-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US–MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy—prospective multicenter study. Radiology 268:461–469. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13121501
doi: 10.1148/radiol.13121501
pubmed: 23579051
Lee JY, Spratt DE, Liss AL, McLaughlin PW (2016) Vessel-sparing radiation and functional anatomy-based preservation for erectile function after prostate radiotherapy. Lancet Oncol 17:e198–e208
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)00063-2
Hamid S, Donaldson IA, Hu Y et al (2018) The smart target 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.08.007
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.08.007
pubmed: 30553611
Quentin M, Blondin D, Arsov C et al (2014) Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging guided in-bore prostate biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in biopsy naïve men with elevated prostate specific antigen. J Urol 192:1374–1379
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.05.090
Venderink W, van der Leest M, van Luijtelaar A et al (2017) 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. World J Urol 35:1849–1855
doi: 10.1007/s00345-017-2085-6
Johnson DC, Raman SS, Mirak SA et al (2018) Detection of individual prostate cancer foci via multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.031
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.031
pubmed: 30509763
pmcid: 7400767
Schoots IG, Osses DF, Drost F-JH et al (2018) 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 7:132
doi: 10.21037/tau.2017.12.29
Chang DT, Challacombe B, Lawrentschuk N (2013) Transperineal biopsy of the prostate—is this the future? Nat Rev Urol 10(12):690–702
doi: 10.1038/nrurol.2013.195
Lian H, Zhuang J, Wang W et al (2017) Assessment of free-hand transperineal targeted prostate biopsy using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion in Chinese men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. BMC Urol 17:52. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-017-0241-3
doi: 10.1186/s12894-017-0241-3
pubmed: 28679370
pmcid: 5499050
Diaz AW, Shakir NA, George AK et al (2015) Use of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. In: Urologic oncology: seminars and original investigations, vol 33, no 5. Elsevier, p 202-e1
Hamoen EHJ, Hoeks CMA, Somford DM et al (2019) Value of Serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging–guided biopsies in men with low-risk prostate cancer on active surveillance after 1 year follow-up. Eur Urol Focus 5:407–415
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2017.12.008
Tonttila PP, Kuisma M, Pääkkö E et al (2018) Lesion size on prostate magnetic resonance imaging predicts adverse radical prostatectomy pathology. Scand J Urol 52:111–115
doi: 10.1080/21681805.2017.1414872
Rud E, Baco E, Lien D et al (2014) Detection of radiorecurrent prostate cancer using diffusion-weighted imaging and targeted biopsies. Am J Roentgenol. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.10483
doi: 10.2214/AJR.12.10483
Donaldson IA, Alonzi R, Barratt D et al (2015) Focal therapy: patients, interventions, and outcomes—a report from a consensus meeting. Eur Urol 67:771–777
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.09.018
Perez-Reggeti JI, Sanchez-Salas R, Sivaraman A et al (2016) High intensity focused ultrasound with Focal-One® device: prostate-specific antigen impact and morbidity evaluation during the initial experience. Actas Urol Esp 40:608–614
doi: 10.1016/j.acuro.2016.04.016