Evolution of prostate cancer diagnosis: retrospective analysis of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided biopsies protocol in routine practice and patients management.
Prostate cancer (PCa)
magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy (MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy)
Journal
Translational andrology and urology
ISSN: 2223-4691
Titre abrégé: Transl Androl Urol
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101581119
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2020
Apr 2020
Historique:
entrez:
19
5
2020
pubmed:
19
5
2020
medline:
19
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is today strongly recommended in prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis. Therefore, MRI/ultrasound (MRI/US) fusion-guided biopsy is becoming the new standard patients management. We report our experience during the last 4 years using this technique, with a protocol of 6 random cores (instead of the most used 12 cores protocol) associated to the target cores (2 to 3 per lesion). Our study involved 236 patients including real life routine practice: biopsy naïve patients (n=107), patients with previous negative standard prostate biopsies (n=67) and patients in PCa active surveillance (n=62). Finally, 76 patients have a robotic radical prostatectomy. Mean age of the population was 66 years. Median PSA was 8.5 ng/mL. Overall and significant cancer detection were respectively 66.6% and 38.5%, with a large difference considering biopsy history: 63.5% in biopsy naïve patient, 53.7% in patient with previous negative biopsies and 82.3% in patients under active surveillance. Targeted biopsies missed 28 cancers among 8 were significant and standard biopsies missed 33 cancers among 14 were significant. Moreover, concordance between biopsy samples and radical prostatectomy specimens was evaluated at 80%. Comparing to literature data, similar results were observed in our retrospective study, even with reduced random cores, suggesting a real change in patients management in particular in active surveillance group with a reclassification rate of 56.4% using the Epstein criteria.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is today strongly recommended in prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis. Therefore, MRI/ultrasound (MRI/US) fusion-guided biopsy is becoming the new standard patients management.
METHODS
METHODS
We report our experience during the last 4 years using this technique, with a protocol of 6 random cores (instead of the most used 12 cores protocol) associated to the target cores (2 to 3 per lesion). Our study involved 236 patients including real life routine practice: biopsy naïve patients (n=107), patients with previous negative standard prostate biopsies (n=67) and patients in PCa active surveillance (n=62). Finally, 76 patients have a robotic radical prostatectomy.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Mean age of the population was 66 years. Median PSA was 8.5 ng/mL. Overall and significant cancer detection were respectively 66.6% and 38.5%, with a large difference considering biopsy history: 63.5% in biopsy naïve patient, 53.7% in patient with previous negative biopsies and 82.3% in patients under active surveillance. Targeted biopsies missed 28 cancers among 8 were significant and standard biopsies missed 33 cancers among 14 were significant. Moreover, concordance between biopsy samples and radical prostatectomy specimens was evaluated at 80%.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Comparing to literature data, similar results were observed in our retrospective study, even with reduced random cores, suggesting a real change in patients management in particular in active surveillance group with a reclassification rate of 56.4% using the Epstein criteria.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32420169
doi: 10.21037/tau.2020.02.02
pii: tau-09-02-629
pmc: PMC7215024
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
629-636Informations de copyright
2020 Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau.2020.02.02). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2015 Nov;141(11):2061-8
pubmed: 26013424
J Urol. 2019 Jan;201(1):84-90
pubmed: 30577395
Eur Urol. 2010 Dec;58(6):831-5
pubmed: 20800964
Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):41-9
pubmed: 26361169
J Urol. 2008 Nov;180(5):1964-7; discussion 1967-8
pubmed: 18801515
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20(1):100-109
pubmed: 30470502
Med Image Anal. 2012 Apr;16(3):687-703
pubmed: 21216180
Cancer. 2016 Mar 15;122(6):884-92
pubmed: 26749141
Abdom Imaging. 2012 Oct;37(5):892-6
pubmed: 22038330
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 10;378(19):1767-1777
pubmed: 29552975
Eur Urol. 2014 Jul;66(1):22-9
pubmed: 24666839
Eur Urol. 2015 Sep;68(3):438-50
pubmed: 25480312
Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):618-629
pubmed: 27568654
Eur Urol. 2014 Apr;65(4):809-15
pubmed: 23523537
Urology. 2017 Dec;110:134-139
pubmed: 28842208
Eur Urol. 2013 Oct;64(4):530-9
pubmed: 23759326
Scand J Urol. 2019 Apr - Jun;53(2-3):89-96
pubmed: 31006323
Eur Urol. 2014 Jun;65(6):1046-55
pubmed: 24439788
Lancet. 2017 Feb 25;389(10071):815-822
pubmed: 28110982
Eur Urol. 2013 Nov;64(5):713-719
pubmed: 23787357
BJU Int. 2015 Jan;115(1):50-7
pubmed: 24552477
BJU Int. 2015 Apr;115(4):562-70
pubmed: 25252133
Int J Urol. 2018 Dec;25(12):990-997
pubmed: 30187529
J Urol. 2017 Sep;198(3):709-711
pubmed: 28579000
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2017 Aug;42(8):2154-2159
pubmed: 28293720
Eur Urol Focus. 2016 Jun;2(2):151-153
pubmed: 28723529
J Urol. 2013 Feb;189(2):493-9
pubmed: 22982424
Acad Radiol. 2019 Aug;26(8):1017-1022
pubmed: 30268722
Eur Urol. 2012 Jun;61(6):1079-92
pubmed: 22424666
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016 Apr 29;108(9):
pubmed: 27130933
Eur J Radiol. 2019 Jan;110:7-13
pubmed: 30599876