Targeted and systematic cognitive freehand-guided transperineal biopsy: is there still a role for systematic biopsy?
freehand transperineal biopsy
prostate biopsy
prostate cancer
systematic
targeted
transperineal
Journal
BJU international
ISSN: 1464-410X
Titre abrégé: BJU Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100886721
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2020
08 2020
Historique:
accepted:
15
04
2020
pubmed:
23
4
2020
medline:
18
12
2020
entrez:
23
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To assess whether targeted cognitive freehand-assisted transperineal biopsies using a Precisionpoint Patients underwent combined systematic mapping and targeted transperineal prostate biopsies at a single institution. Biopsies were performed using the Precisionpoint device (Perineologic, Cumberland, MD, USA) under either local anaesthetic (58%, 163/282), i.v. sedation (12%, 34/282) or general anaesthetic (30%, 85/282). A mean (range) of 24 (5-42) systematic and 4.2 (1-11) target cores were obtained. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans were reported using the Likert scale. Clinically significant cancer was defined as Gleason 7 or above. Histopathological results were correlated with the presence of an MRI abnormality within a spatial quadrant and the other adjoining or non-adjoining (opposite) quadrants. Histological concordance with radical prostatectomy specimens was analysed. A total of 282 patients were included in this study. Their mean (range) age was 66.8 (36-80) years, median (range) prostate-specific antigen level 7.4 (0.91-116) ng/mL and mean prostate volume 45.8 (13-150) mL. In this cohort, 82% of cases (230/282) were primary biopsies and 18% (52/282) were patients on surveillance. In all, 69% of biopsies (195/282) were identified to have clinically significant disease (Gleason ≥3 + 4). Any cancer (Gleason ≥3 + 3) was found in 84% (237/282) of patients. Of patients with clinically significant disease, the target biopsies alone picked up 88% (171/195), with systematic biopsy picking up the additional 12% (24/195) that the target biopsies missed. This altered with Likert score; 73% of Likert score 3 disease was detected by target biopsy, 92% of Likert score 4 and 100% of Likert score 5. Target biopsies with additional same-quadrant-only systematic cores picked up 75% (18/24) of significant cancer that was missed on target only, found in the same quadrant as the target. Systematic biopsy is still an important tool when evaluating all patients referred for prostate biopsy, but the need is decreased with increasing suspicion on MRI. Patients with very high suspicion of prostate cancer (Likert score 5) may not require systematic cores, unless representative surrounding biopsies are required for other specific treatments (e.g. focal therapy, or operative planning). More prospective studies are needed to evaluate this in full.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
280-285Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors BJU International © 2020 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Statistics OfN. Cancer survival in England: national estimates for patients followed up to 2017, 2019, 24 January.
Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68: 394-424
NICE. Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management, 2019, May
Urology EAo. Guidelines on Prostate Cancer, 2019
Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 2013; 64: 876-92
Ekwueme K, Simpson H, Zakhour H, Parr NJ. Transperineal template-guided saturation biopsy using a modified technique: outcome of 270 cases requiring repeat prostate biopsy. BJU Int 2013; 111: E365-373
Hansen N, Patruno G, Wadhwa K, et al. Magnetic resonance and ultrasound image fusion supported transperineal prostate biopsy using the ginsburg protocol: technique, learning points, and biopsy results. Eur Urol 2016; 70: 332-40
Omer A, Lamb AD. Optimizing prostate biopsy techniques. Curr Opin Urol 2019; 29: 578-86
Kum F, Elhage O, Maliyil J, et al. Initial outcomes of local anaesthetic freehand transperineal biopsies in the outpatient setting. BJU Int 2018; 125: 244-52
Stefanova V, Buckley R, Flax S, et al. Transperineal prostate biopsies using local anesthesia: experience with 1,287 patients. prostate cancer detection rate, complications and patient tolerability. J Urol 2019; 201: 1121-6
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
Kuru TH, Wadhwa K, Chang RT, et al. Definitions of terms, processes and a minimum dataset for transperineal prostate biopsies: a standardization approach of the Ginsburg Study Group for Enhanced Prostate Diagnostics. BJU Int 2013; 112: 568-77
Miah S, Hosking-Jervis F, Connor MJ, et al. A multicentre analysis of the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer following transperineal image-fusion targeted and nontargeted systematic prostate biopsy in men at risk. Eur Urol Oncol 2019; pii: S2588-9311(19)30038-0.
Miah S, Eldred-Evans D, Simmons LAM, et al. Patient reported outcome measures for transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies in the PICTURE study. J Urol 2018; 200: 1235-40
Rouviere O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, et al. 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 2019; 20: 100-109
Mannaerts CK, Kajtazovic A, Lodeizen OAP, et al. The added value of systematic biopsy in men with suspicion of prostate cancer undergoing multiparametric MRI-targeted biopsy. Urol Oncol 2019; 37: 298.e291-9
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: 1030-4
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: 14-7
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: 83-9
Elkhoury FF, Simopoulos DN, Marks LS. MR-guided biopsy and focal therapy: new options for prostate cancer management. Curr Opin Urol 2018; 28: 93-101
Klotz L. Active surveillance and focal therapy for low-intermediate risk prostate cancer. Transl Androl Urol 2015; 4: 342-54
Drost FH, Osses DF, Nieboer D, et al. Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 4: CD012663
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 confirmatory study. Lancet 2017; 389: 815-22