[Image-guided biopsy of the prostate gland].
Bildgesteuerte Biopsie der Prostata.
Fusion biopsy
Guidelines
Magnetic resonance imaging
Prostatic neoplasms
Transperineal
Journal
Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany)
ISSN: 2731-7072
Titre abrégé: Urologie
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9918384886606676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2022
Oct 2022
Historique:
accepted:
16
08
2022
pubmed:
31
8
2022
medline:
13
10
2022
entrez:
30
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The recommendations on carrying out a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for the primary diagnostics and during active surveillance of prostate cancer, include as a consequence an image-guided sampling from conspicuous areas. In doing so, the information on the localization provided by mpMRI is used for a targeted biopsy of the area suspected of being a tumor. The targeted sampling is mainly performed under sonographic control and after fusion of MRI and ultrasound but can also be (mostly in special cases) carried out directly in the MRI scanner. In an ultrasound-guided biopsy, it is vital to coregister the MR images with the ultrasound images (segmentation of the contour of the prostate and registration of suspect findings). This coregistration can either be carried out cognitively (transfer by the person performing the biopsy alone) or software based. Each method shows specific advantages and disadvantages in the prioritization between diagnostic accuracy and resource expenditure. Die Empfehlung zur Durchführung einer multiparametrischen Magnetresonanztomographie (mpMRT) in der Primärdiagnostik und während aktiver Überwachung des Prostatakarzinoms beinhaltet als Konsequenz eine bildgesteuerte Probenentnahme aus den auffälligen Arealen. Hierbei wird die Lokalisationsinformation aus den MRT-Bildern für eine gezielte Biopsie tumorsuspekter Areale genutzt. Die gezielte Probenentnahme wird in der Regel unter sonographischer Kontrolle und nach MRT-Ultraschall-Fusion durchgeführt, kann aber auch (meist in speziellen Fällen) direkt im MR-Tomographen erfolgen. Bei einer ultraschallkontrollierten Probenentnahme muss eine Koregistrierung mit den MRT-Bildern (Segmentierung der Prostatakontur und Registrierung suspekter Befunde) erfolgen. Diese Koregistrierung kann entweder kognitiv (alleinige Transferleistung durch die biopsierende Person) oder softwarebasiert durchgeführt werden. Jedes der Verfahren zeigt spezifische Vor- und Nachteile im Spannungsfeld zwischen diagnostischer Genauigkeit und Ressourcenaufwand.
Autres résumés
Type: Publisher
(ger)
Die Empfehlung zur Durchführung einer multiparametrischen Magnetresonanztomographie (mpMRT) in der Primärdiagnostik und während aktiver Überwachung des Prostatakarzinoms beinhaltet als Konsequenz eine bildgesteuerte Probenentnahme aus den auffälligen Arealen. Hierbei wird die Lokalisationsinformation aus den MRT-Bildern für eine gezielte Biopsie tumorsuspekter Areale genutzt. Die gezielte Probenentnahme wird in der Regel unter sonographischer Kontrolle und nach MRT-Ultraschall-Fusion durchgeführt, kann aber auch (meist in speziellen Fällen) direkt im MR-Tomographen erfolgen. Bei einer ultraschallkontrollierten Probenentnahme muss eine Koregistrierung mit den MRT-Bildern (Segmentierung der Prostatakontur und Registrierung suspekter Befunde) erfolgen. Diese Koregistrierung kann entweder kognitiv (alleinige Transferleistung durch die biopsierende Person) oder softwarebasiert durchgeführt werden. Jedes der Verfahren zeigt spezifische Vor- und Nachteile im Spannungsfeld zwischen diagnostischer Genauigkeit und Ressourcenaufwand.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36040512
doi: 10.1007/s00120-022-01929-x
pii: 10.1007/s00120-022-01929-x
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
ger
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1137-1148Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.
Références
Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA (1989) Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 142(1):71–74 (discussion 4–5)
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)38664-0
Schoots IG, Padhani AR (2020) Delivering Clinical impacts of the MRI diagnostic pathway in prostate cancer diagnosis. Abdom Radiol 45(12):4012–4022
doi: 10.1007/s00261-020-02547-x
van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israel B, Hendriks R, Padhani AR, Hoogenboom M 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-naive men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol 75(4):570–578
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023
Halpern EJ, Strup SE (2000) Using gray-scale and color and power Doppler sonography to detect prostatic cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174(3):623–627
doi: 10.2214/ajr.174.3.1740623
Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF): Interdisziplinäre Leitlinie der Qualität S3 zur Früherkennung, Diagnose und Therapie der verschiedenen Stadien des Prostatakarzinoms, Langversion 5.1, 2019. AWMF Registernummer: 043/022OL, http://www.leitlinienprogramm-onkolo-gie.de/leitlinien/prostatakarzinom/ .
Li Y, Tang J, Fei X, Gao Y (2013) Diagnostic performance of contrast enhanced ultrasound in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Acad Radiol 20(2):156–164
doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2012.09.018
Anbarasan T, Wei C, Bamber JC, Barr RG, Nabi G (2021) Characterisation of prostate lesions using transrectal shear wave elastography (SWE) ultrasound imaging: a systematic review. Cancers. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13010122
doi: 10.3390/cancers13010122
pubmed: 33558449
pmcid: 7795187
Wildeboer RR, Mannaerts CK, van Sloun RJG, Budaus L, Tilki D, Wijkstra H et al (2020) Automated multiparametric localization of prostate cancer based on B‑mode, shear-wave elastography, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound radiomics. Eur Radiol 30(2):806–815
doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06436-w
Ghai S, Eure G, Fradet V, Hyndman ME, McGrath T, Wodlinger B et al (2016) Assessing cancer risk on novel 29 MHz micro-ultrasound images of the prostate: creation of the micro-ultrasound protocol for prostate risk identification. J Urol 196(2):562–569
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.093
Klotz L, Lughezzani G, Maffei D, Sanchez A, Pereira JG, Staerman F et al (2021) Comparison of micro-ultrasound and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: a multicenter, prospective analysis. Can Urol Assoc J 15(1):E11–E16
pubmed: 32701437
Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ et al (2019) Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol 76(3):340–351 ( https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0302283819301800 .)
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
Franiel T, Asbach P, Beyersdorff D, Blondin D, Kaufmann S, Mueller-Lisse UG et al (2021) mpMRI of the Prostate (MR-Prostatography): Updated Recommendations of the DRG and BDR on Patient Preparation and Scanning Protocol. Rofo 193(7):763–777
pubmed: 33735931
Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George AK, Rothwax J, Shakir N et al (2015) Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion–guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 313(4):390. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.17942
doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.17942
pubmed: 25626035
pmcid: 4572575
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389(10071):815–822 ( https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673616324011 .)
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
Eklund M, Jaderling F, Discacciati A, Bergman M, Annerstedt M, Aly M et al (2021) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy in prostate cancer screening. N Engl J Med 385(10):908–920
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2100852
Klotz L, Chin J, Black PC, Finelli A, Anidjar M, Bladou F et al (2021) Comparison of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy with systematic transrectal ultrasonography biopsy for biopsy-naive men at risk for prostate cancer: a phase 3 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 7(4):534–542
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.7589
Bittencourt LK, Guricova K, Zucker I, Durieux JC, Schoots IG (2022) Risk-based MRI-directed diagnostic pathway outperforms non-risk-based pathways in suspected prostate cancer biopsy-naive men: a large cohort validation study. Eur Radiol 32(4):2330–2339
doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-08407-6
Kwak JT, Hong CW, Pinto PA, Williams M, Xu S, Kruecker J et al (2015) Is visual registration equivalent to semiautomated registration in prostate biopsy? Biomed Res Int 2015:394742
doi: 10.1155/2015/394742
Halstuch D, Baniel J, Lifshitz D, Sela S, Ber Y, Margel D (2019) Characterizing the learning curve of MRI-US fusion prostate biopsies. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 22(4):546–551
doi: 10.1038/s41391-019-0137-2
Wegelin O, Exterkate L, van der Leest M, Kummer JA, Vreuls W, de Bruin PC, et al. The FUTURE Trial (2019) 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 75(4):582–590
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.040
Klingebiel M, Ullrich T, Rabenalt R, Albers P, Antoch G, Schimmoller L (2018) Rofo 190(11):1067–1069
doi: 10.1055/a-0620-8875
Venderink W, Bomers JG, Overduin CG, Padhani AR, de Lauw GR, Sedelaar MJ et al (2020) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: what urologists need to know. Part 3: targeted biopsy. Eur Urol 77(4):481–490
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.10.009
Venderink W, de Rooij M, Sedelaar JPM, Huisman HJ, Futterer JJ (2018) Elastic versus rigid image registration in magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus 4(2):219–227
doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2016.07.003
Sokolakis I, Pyrgidis N, Koneval L, Krebs M, Thurner A, Kubler H et al (2021) Usability and diagnostic accuracy of different MRI/ultrasound-guided fusion biopsy systems for the detection of clinically significant and insignificant prostate cancer: a prospective cohort study. World J Urol 39(11):4101–4108
doi: 10.1007/s00345-021-03761-y
Gortz M, Nyarangi-Dix JN, Pursche L, Schutz V, Reimold P, Schwab C et al (2022) Impact of surgeon’s experience in rigid versus elastic MRI/TRUS-fusion biopsy to detect significant prostate cancer using targeted and systematic cores. Cancers. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14040886
doi: 10.3390/cancers14040886
pubmed: 35205634
pmcid: 8870088
Grummet J, Gorin MA, Popert R, O’Brien T, Lamb AD, Hadaschik B et al (2020) “TREXIT 2020”: why the time to abandon transrectal prostate biopsy starts now. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 23(1):62–65
doi: 10.1038/s41391-020-0204-8
Tu X, Liu Z, Chang T, Qiu S, Xu H, Bao Y et al (2019) Transperineal magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy May perform better than transrectal route in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Genitourin Cancer 17(5):e860–e870
doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2019.05.006
N. Mottet PC, R.C.N. van den Bergh, E. Briers MDS, S. Gillessen, J. Grummet AMH, T.H. van der Kwast, T.B. Lam, M.D. Mason SOH, D.E. Oprea-Lager, G. Ploussard, H.G. van der Poel OR, I.G. Schoots. D. Tilki, T. Wiegel, Guidelines Associates: T. Van den Broeck MC, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP_SIOG-Guidelines-on-Prostate-Cancer-2022. 2022.
Sigle A, Suarez-Ibarrola R, Pudimat M, Michaelis J, Jilg CA, Miernik A et al (2021) Safety and side effects of transperineal prostate biopsy without antibiotic prophylaxis. Urol Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.02.016
doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.02.016
pubmed: 33736977
Kohl T, Sigle A, Kuru T, Salem J, Rolfs H, Kowalke T et al (2021) Comprehensive analysis of complications after transperineal prostate biopsy without antibiotic prophylaxis: results of a multicenter trial with 30 days’ follow-up. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-021-00423-3
doi: 10.1038/s41391-021-00423-3
pubmed: 34267332
pmcid: 9184280
Jacewicz M et al (2022) Antibiotic prophylaxis versus no antibiotic prophylaxis in transperineal prostate biopsies (NORAPP): a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00373-5
doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099
Xiang J, Yan H, Li J, Wang X, Chen H, Zheng X (2019) Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol 17(1):31
doi: 10.1186/s12957-019-1573-0
Park KJ, Choi SH, Lee JS, Kim JK, Kim MH (2020) Interreader agreement with prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 for prostate cancer detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol 204(4):661–670
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001200
Brisbane WG, Priester AM, Ballon J, Kwan L, Delfin MK, Felker ER et al (2022) Targeted prostate biopsy: umbra, penumbra, and value of perilesional sampling. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2022.01.008
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.01.008
pubmed: 35115177
Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, Hooft L, Bosch JLHR, Reitsma HB, Barentsz JO et al (2017) 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 71(4):517–531 ( https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0302283816304468 )
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.07.041