Prostate cancer detection by targeted prostate biopsy using the 3D Navigo system: a prospective study.
Clinically significant prostate cancer
Fusion biopsy
PIRADS version 2 score
Prostate cancer
Targeted biopsies
Journal
Abdominal radiology (New York)
ISSN: 2366-0058
Titre abrégé: Abdom Radiol (NY)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101674571
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2021
09 2021
Historique:
received:
08
12
2020
accepted:
31
03
2021
revised:
28
03
2021
pubmed:
16
4
2021
medline:
7
9
2021
entrez:
15
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The 3D Navigo™ system is a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion device for prostate targeted biopsies (TB). Our aim was to evaluate the clinically significant prostate cancer (CSC) detection rate of TB using the 3D Navigo™ system. Patients who underwent TB with the 3D Navigo™ system in our center between June 2014 and May 2018 were prospectively included, excluding those who have previously received treatment for prostate cancer. A 3-Tesla MRI imaging was performed before biopsies; findings were reported according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PIRADS). CSC was defined by an ISUP score ≥ 2. 304 patients underwent TB. Median age was 66 years (51-84). Median PSA was 7.75 ng/ml (0.6-70.0). Median prostate volume was 45.0 ml (15.9-221.7). PCa and CSC were found in 70.4% (214/304) and 47.7% (145/304) of the patients, respectively. The proportion of patients diagnosed with CSC among those with PCa was 67.8% (145/214). There was a significant risk of having a CSC in case of PIRADS score ≥ 4 and 5 (OR 5.0, 95% CI [2.7-9.2], P < 0.001; OR 3.2, 95% CI [1.8-5.5], P < 0.001). PIRADS score was an independent risk factor of having a CSC (OR 4.19, 95% CI [2.49-7.05], P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between pathological outcomes of TB and RP in paired analysis (P = 0.892). There was a correlation between TB and RP specimens for PCa detection (r = 0.60, P < 0.001). Detecting CSC with MRI-TRUS fusion targeted biopsies using the 3D Navigo™ system is feasible and safe. We found a positive correlation between TB and RP for ISUP scores.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33856508
doi: 10.1007/s00261-021-03078-9
pii: 10.1007/s00261-021-03078-9
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
4381-4387Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin 2019;69:7–34. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21551 .
doi: 10.3322/caac.21551
pubmed: 30620402
Richenberg J, Løgager V, Panebianco V, Rouviere O, Villeirs G, Schoots IG. The primacy of multiparametric MRI in men with suspected prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 2019;29:6940–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06166-z .
doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06166-z
pubmed: 31172275
pmcid: 6828624
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. The Lancet 2017;389:815–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1 .
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, Claudon M, Roy C, Mège-Lechevallier F, 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;20:100–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2 .
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2
pubmed: 30470502
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018;378:1767–77. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993 .
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
pubmed: 29552975
pmcid: 9084630
van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B, Hendriks R, Padhani AR, Hoogenboom M, 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;75:570–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023 .
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023
pubmed: 30477981
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet Lond Engl 2017;389:815–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1 .
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
Professionals S-O. EAU Guidelines: Prostate Cancer. Uroweb n.d. https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/ (accessed November 8, 2020).
Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, Hooft L, Bosch JLHR, Reitsma HB, Barentsz JO, 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.07.041 .
Venderink W, Rooij M de, Sedelaar JPM, Huisman HJ, Fütterer JJ. Elastic Versus Rigid Image Registration in Magnetic Resonance Imaging–transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus 2018;4:219–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2016.07.003 .
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2016.07.003
pubmed: 28753777
Noureldin M, Eldred-Evans D, Khoo CC, Winkler M, Sokhi H, Tam H, et al. Review article: MRI-targeted biopsies for prostate cancer diagnosis and management. World J Urol 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03182-3 .
doi: 10.1007/s00345-020-03182-3
pubmed: 32556675
Mannaerts CK, Gayet M, Verbeek JF, Engelbrecht MRW, Savci-Heijink CD, Jager GJ, et al. Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment in Biopsy-naïve Patients: The Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator in Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound (TRUS) Fusion Biopsy and Systematic TRUS Biopsy. Eur Urol Oncol 2018;1:109–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2018.02.010 .
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.02.010
pubmed: 31100233
Gayet M, van der Aa A, Schmitz P, Beerlage HP, Schrier BPh, Mulders PFA, et al. 3D Navigo™ versus TRUS-guided prostate biopsy in prostate cancer detection. World J Urol 2016;34:1255–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1775-9 .
doi: 10.1007/s00345-016-1775-9
pubmed: 26847183
van der Aa AAMA, Mannaerts CK, Gayet MCW, van der Linden JC, Schrier BP, Sedelaar JPM, et al. Three-dimensional greyscale transrectal ultrasound-guidance and biopsy core preembedding for detection of prostate cancer: Dutch clinical cohort study. BMC Urol 2019;19:23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-019-0455-7 .
doi: 10.1186/s12894-019-0455-7
pubmed: 30991993
pmcid: 6469087
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 2016;69:16–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052 .
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052
pubmed: 26427566
Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. - PubMed - NCBI n.d. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23537686 (accessed April 18, 2020).
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A. Classification of Surgical Complications. Ann Surg 2004;240:205–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae .
doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
pubmed: 15273542
pmcid: 1360123
Brown LC, Ahmed HU, Faria R, El-Shater Bosaily A, Gabe R, Kaplan RS, et al. Multiparametric MRI to improve detection of prostate cancer compared with transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy alone: the PROMIS study. Health Technol Assess 2018;22:1–176. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta22390 .
doi: 10.3310/hta22390
pubmed: 30040065
pmcid: 6077599
Shoji S. Magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion image-guided prostate biopsy: Current status of the cancer detection and the prospects of tailor-made medicine of the prostate cancer. Investig Clin Urol 2019;60:4–13. https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.2019.60.1.4 .
doi: 10.4111/icu.2019.60.1.4
pubmed: 30637355
Venderink W, Govers TM, de Rooij M, Fütterer JJ, Sedelaar JPM. Cost-Effectiveness Comparison of Imaging-Guided Prostate Biopsy Techniques: Systematic Transrectal Ultrasound, Direct In-Bore MRI, and Image Fusion. Am J Roentgenol 2017;208:1058–63. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.17322 .
doi: 10.2214/AJR.16.17322
Gayet M, van der Aa A, Beerlage HP, Schrier BPh, Mulders PFA, Wijkstra H. The value of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography (MRI/US)-fusion biopsy platforms in prostate cancer detection: a systematic review. BJU Int 2016;117:392–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13247 .
doi: 10.1111/bju.13247
pubmed: 26237632
Oderda M, Faletti R, Battisti G, Dalmasso E, Falcone M, Marra G, et al. Prostate Cancer Detection Rate with Koelis Fusion Biopsies versus Cognitive Biopsies: A Comparative Study. Urol Int 2016;97:230–7. https://doi.org/10.1159/000445524 .
doi: 10.1159/000445524
pubmed: 27256369
Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, Stifelman MD, Lepor H, Deng F-M, et al. A Prospective, Blinded Comparison of Magnetic Resonance (MR) Imaging–Ultrasound Fusion and Visual Estimation in the Performance of MR-targeted Prostate Biopsy: The PROFUS Trial. Eur Urol 2014;66:343–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.10.048 .
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.10.048
pubmed: 24262102
Ploussard G, Salomon LJ, Xylinas E, Allory Y, Vordos D, Hoznek A, et al. Pathological findings and prostate specific antigen outcomes after radical prostatectomy in men eligible for active surveillance–does the risk of misclassification vary according to biopsy criteria? J Urol 2010;183:539–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.009 .
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.009
pubmed: 20006888
Robertson NL, Hu Y, Ahmed HU, Freeman A, Barratt D, Emberton M. Prostate Cancer Risk Inflation as a Consequence of Image-targeted Biopsy of the Prostate: A Computer Simulation Study. Eur Urol 2014;65:628–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.12.057 .
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.12.057
pubmed: 23312572
pmcid: 3925797
Goel S, Shoag JE, Gross MD, Awamlh BAHA, Robinson B, Khani F, et al. Concordance Between Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Pathology in the Era of Targeted Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol Oncol 2019;0. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2019.08.001 .
Lee CH, Ku JY, Park WY, Lee, Ha HK. Comparison of the accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) results with the final pathology findings for radical prostatectomy specimens in the detection of prostate cancer. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 2019;15:e20–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajco.13027 .
Bensalah K, Albiges L, Bernhard J-C, Bigot P, Bodin T, Boissier R, et al. Recommandations françaises du NK Comité de Cancérologie de l’AFU – Actualisation 2018–2020 : prise en charge du cancer du rein. Prog En Urol 2018;28:S3–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.purol.2018.09.009 .
doi: 10.1016/j.purol.2018.09.009