A prospective study on inter-operator variability in semi-robotic software-based MRI/TRUS-fusion targeted prostate biopsies.
Accuracy
Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging
Prostatic neoplasm
Reproducibility
Software-based fusion biopsy
Surgeon
Journal
World journal of urology
ISSN: 1433-8726
Titre abrégé: World J Urol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8307716
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2022
Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
09
09
2021
accepted:
14
11
2021
pubmed:
27
11
2021
medline:
17
3
2022
entrez:
26
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasound-fusion prostate biopsy (FB) comprises multiple steps each of which can cause alterations in targeted biopsy (TB) accuracy leading to false-negative results. The aim was to assess the inter-operator variability of software-based fusion TB by targeting the same MRI-lesions by different urologists. In this prospective study, 142 patients eligible for analysis underwent software-based FB. TB of all lesions (n = 172) were carried out by two different urologists per patient (n = 31 urologists). We analyzed the number of mismatches [overall prostate cancer (PCa), clinically significant PCa (csPCa) and non-significant PCa (nsPCa)] between both performed TB per patient. In addition we evaluated factors contributing to inter-operator variability by uni- and multivariable analyses. In 11.6% of all MRI-lesions (10.6% of all patients) there was a mismatch between TB1 and TB2 in terms of overall prostate cancer (PCa detection. Regarding csPCa, patient-based mismatch occurred in 14.8% (n = 21). Overall PCa and csPCa detection rate of TB1 and TB2 did not differ significantly on a per-patient and per-lesion level. Analyses revealed a smaller lesion size as predictive for mismatches (OR 9.19, 95% CI 2.02-41.83, p < 0.001). Reproducibility and precision of targeting particularly small lesions is still limited although using software-based FB. Further improvements in image-fusion, segmentation, needle-guidance, and automatization are necessary.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34825944
doi: 10.1007/s00345-021-03891-3
pii: 10.1007/s00345-021-03891-3
pmc: PMC8921147
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
427-433Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Drost FH, Osses DF, Nieboer D, Steyerberg EW, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ, Schoots IG (2019) Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD012663. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012663.pub2
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012663.pub2
pubmed: 31022301
van Luijtelaar A, Bomers J, Futterer J (2019) A comparison of magnetic resonance imaging techniques used to secure biopsies in prostate cancer patients. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 19(8):705–716. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737140.2019.1641086
doi: 10.1080/14737140.2019.1641086
pubmed: 31277551
Ahdoot M, Wilbur AR, Reese SE, Lebastchi AH, Mehralivand S, Gomella PT, Bloom J, Gurram S, Siddiqui M, Pinsky P, Parnes H, Linehan WM, Merino M, Choyke PL, Shih JH, Turkbey B, Wood BJ, Pinto PA (2020) MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 382(10):917–928. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1910038
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910038
pubmed: 32130814
pmcid: 7323919
Mannaerts CK, Kajtazovic A, Lodeizen OAP, Gayet M, Engelbrecht MRW, Jager GJ, Wijkstra H, de Reijke TM, Beerlage HP (2019) The added value of systematic biopsy in men with suspicion of prostate cancer undergoing multiparametric MRI-targeted biopsy. Urol Oncol 37(5):298.e291-298.e299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.01.005
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.01.005
Rouviere O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, Claudon M, Roy C, Mege-Lechevallier F, Decaussin-Petrucci M, Dubreuil-Chambardel M, Magaud L, Remontet L, Ruffion A, Colombel M, Crouzet S, Schott AM, Lemaitre L, Rabilloud M, Grenier N, M-F Investigators (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(1):100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2
pubmed: 30470502
Smith CP, Harmon SA, Barrett T, Bittencourt LK, Law YM, Shebel H, An JY, Czarniecki M, Mehralivand S, Coskun M, Wood BJ, Pinto PA, Shih JH, Choyke PL, Turkbey B (2019) Intra- and interreader reproducibility of PI-RADSv2: a multireader study. J Magn Reson Imaging 49(6):1694–1703. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26555
doi: 10.1002/jmri.26555
pubmed: 30575184
Westhoff N, Siegel F, Peter C, Hetjens S, Porubsky S, Martini T, von Hardenberg J, Michel MS, Budjan J, Ritter M (2019) Defining the target prior to prostate fusion biopsy: the effect of MRI reporting on cancer detection. World J Urol 37(2):327–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2400-x
doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2400-x
pubmed: 29967946
Calio B, Sidana A, Sugano D, Gaur S, Jain A, Maruf M, Xu S, Yan P, Kruecker J, Merino M, Choyke P, Turkbey B, Wood B, Pinto P (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(4):436–441. https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2017.34
doi: 10.1038/pcan.2017.34
pubmed: 28762373
pmcid: 8170829
Mager R, Brandt MP, Borgmann H, Gust KM, Haferkamp A, Kurosch M (2017) From novice to expert: analyzing the learning curve for MRI-transrectal ultrasonography fusion-guided transrectal prostate biopsy. Int Urol Nephrol 49(9):1537–1544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-017-1642-7
doi: 10.1007/s11255-017-1642-7
pubmed: 28646483
Zalesky M, Stejskal J, Minarik I, Adamcova V, Babjuk M, Zachoval R (2020) Cancer detection rates and inter-examiner variability of MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy and systematic transrectal biopsy. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub 164(3):314–319. https://doi.org/10.5507/bp.2019.050
doi: 10.5507/bp.2019.050
pubmed: 31602045
Kenigsberg AP, Renson A, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang R, Wysock JS, Taneja SS, Bjurlin MA (2018) Optimizing the number of cores targeted during prostate magnetic resonance imaging fusion target biopsy. Eur Urol Oncol 1(5):418–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2018.09.006
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.09.006
pubmed: 31158081
Baco E, Rud E, Ukimura O, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A, Matsugasumi T, Bernhard JC, Rewcastle JC, Eggesbo HB (2014) Effect of targeted biopsy guided by elastic image fusion of MRI with 3D-TRUS on diagnosis of anterior prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 32(8):1300–1307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.07.014
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.07.014
pubmed: 25189687
Tay KJ, Gupta RT, Rastinehad AR, Tsivian E, Freedland SJ, Moul JW, Polascik TJ (2016) Navigating MRI–TRUS fusion biopsy: optimizing the process and avoiding technical pitfalls. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 16(3):303–311. https://doi.org/10.1586/14737140.2016.1131155
doi: 10.1586/14737140.2016.1131155
pubmed: 26653079
Gold SA, Hale GR, Bloom JB, Smith CP, Rayn KN, Valera V, Wood BJ, Choyke PL, Turkbey B, Pinto PA (2019) Follow-up of negative MRI-targeted prostate biopsies: when are we missing cancer? World J Urol 37(2):235–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2337-0
doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2337-0
pubmed: 29785491
Muthigi A, George AK, Sidana A, Kongnyuy M, Simon R, Moreno V, Merino MJ, Choyke PL, Turkbey B, Wood BJ, Pinto PA (2017) Missing the mark: prostate cancer upgrading by systematic biopsy over magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. J Urol 197(2):327–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.08.097
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.08.097
pubmed: 27582434
Walton Diaz A, Hoang AN, Turkbey B, Hong CW, Truong H, Sterling T, Rais-Bahrami S, Siddiqui MM, Stamatakis L, Vourganti S, Nix J, Logan J, Harris C, Weintraub M, Chua C, Merino MJ, Choyke P, Wood BJ, Pinto PA (2013) Can magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy improve cancer detection in enlarged prostates? J Urol 190(6):2020–2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.118
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.118
pubmed: 23792130
Wooten III WJ, Nye JA, Schuster DM, Nieh PT, Master VA, Votaw JR, Fei B (2013) Accuracy evaluation of a 3D ultrasound-guided biopsy system. In: Proceedings of the SPIE International Society for Optical Engineering, vol 8671. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2007695
Borghesi M, Ahmed H, Nam R, Schaeffer E, Schiavina R, Taneja S, Weidner W, Loeb S (2017) Complications after systematic, random, and image-guided prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 71(3):353–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.004
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.004
pubmed: 27543165
Aihara M, Wheeler TM, Ohori M, Scardino PT (1994) Heterogeneity of prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 43(1):60–66; discussion 66–67. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(94)80264-5