Bimodal imaging: Detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer is higher in MRI lesions visible to transrectal ultrasound.
MRI
systematic biopsy
targeted biopsy
transrectal ultrasound
Journal
The Prostate
ISSN: 1097-0045
Titre abrégé: Prostate
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8101368
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Sep 2024
01 Sep 2024
Historique:
revised:
26
07
2024
received:
12
06
2024
accepted:
19
08
2024
medline:
2
9
2024
pubmed:
2
9
2024
entrez:
2
9
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To explore the detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa; ISUP ≥2) in patients with a single MRI lesion that is visible or invisible on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) during biopsy. Retrospective analyses of patients who underwent targeted and systematic biopsy of the prostate for one MRI-visible lesion (PI-RADS score ≥ 3) between 2017 and 2022. TRUS-visibility, PI-RADS score, and clinical parameters were recorded prospectively. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of csPCa. 277 consecutive patients with one MRI-visible lesion were identified. A correlating lesion on TRUS was present in 147/277 (53%). The median age, PSA level, and prostate volume were 68.0 years (IQR: 62.0-73.0), 7.3 ng/ml (IQR: 5.4-10.8) and 45.0 cc (IQR: 32.0-68.0), respectively. Baseline parameters were not significantly different between the two groups. CsPCa was detected in 59/130 (45%) without and in 102/147 (69%) patients with a corresponding TRUS lesion. In multivariable logistic regression analysis predicting csPCa, TRUS-visibility (OR: 2.13, CI: 1.14-4.03, p = 0.02) and PI-RADS score (PI-RADS 4: OR: 7.28, CI: 3.33-17.19; PI-RADS 5: OR: 13.39, CI: 5.27-36.83, p < 0.001) achieved independent predictor status. Bimodal-visible lesions more often harbored csPCa and were easier to target. TRUS-visibility of MRI lesions is an independent predictor of csPCa. Therefore, education in both modalities is essential. Despite MRI, the ultrasound should still be diligently examined.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To explore the detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa; ISUP ≥2) in patients with a single MRI lesion that is visible or invisible on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) during biopsy.
METHODS
METHODS
Retrospective analyses of patients who underwent targeted and systematic biopsy of the prostate for one MRI-visible lesion (PI-RADS score ≥ 3) between 2017 and 2022. TRUS-visibility, PI-RADS score, and clinical parameters were recorded prospectively. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of csPCa.
RESULTS
RESULTS
277 consecutive patients with one MRI-visible lesion were identified. A correlating lesion on TRUS was present in 147/277 (53%). The median age, PSA level, and prostate volume were 68.0 years (IQR: 62.0-73.0), 7.3 ng/ml (IQR: 5.4-10.8) and 45.0 cc (IQR: 32.0-68.0), respectively. Baseline parameters were not significantly different between the two groups. CsPCa was detected in 59/130 (45%) without and in 102/147 (69%) patients with a corresponding TRUS lesion. In multivariable logistic regression analysis predicting csPCa, TRUS-visibility (OR: 2.13, CI: 1.14-4.03, p = 0.02) and PI-RADS score (PI-RADS 4: OR: 7.28, CI: 3.33-17.19; PI-RADS 5: OR: 13.39, CI: 5.27-36.83, p < 0.001) achieved independent predictor status.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Bimodal-visible lesions more often harbored csPCa and were easier to target. TRUS-visibility of MRI lesions is an independent predictor of csPCa. Therefore, education in both modalities is essential. Despite MRI, the ultrasound should still be diligently examined.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). The Prostate published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. MRI‐targeted or standard biopsy for Prostate‐Cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1767‐1777.
Mottet N, Cornford P, Van Den Bergh R, et al. EAU ‐ EANM ‐ ESTRO ‐ ESUR ‐ ISUP ‐ SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Milan 2023. EAU Guidelines Office; 2023<In.
Van De Ven WJM, Sedelaar JPM, Van Der Leest MMG, et al. Visibility of prostate cancer on transrectal ultrasound during fusion with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for biopsy. Clin Imaging. 2016;40:745‐750.
Choi MH, Lee YJ, Jung SE, Lee JY, Choi YJ. Prostate cancer detection rate according to lesion visibility using ultrasound and MRI. Clin Radiol. 2019;74:474‐479.
Garcia‐Reyes K, Nguyen HG, Zagoria RJ, et al. Impact of lesion visibility on transrectal ultrasound on the prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason Score 3 + 4 or Greater) with transrectal Ultrasound‐Magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy. J Urol. 2018;199:699‐705.
Ukimura O, Marien A, Palmer S, et al. Trans‐rectal ultrasound visibility of prostate lesions identified by magnetic resonance imaging increases accuracy of image‐fusion targeted biopsies. World J Urol. 2015;33:1669‐1676.
Velarde N, Westphalen AC, Nguyen HG, et al. US lesion visibility predicts clinically significant upgrade of prostate cancer by systematic biopsy. Abdom Radiol. 2022;47:1133‐1141.
Shakir NA, Siddiqui MM, George AK, et al. Should hypoechoic lesions on transrectal ultrasound be sampled during magnetic resonance imaging‐targeted prostate biopsy? Urology. 2017;105:113‐117.
Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol. 2019;76:340‐351.
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI‐RADS prostate imaging ‐ reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69:16‐40.
Van Leenders GJLH, Van Der Kwast TH, Grignon DJ, et al. The 2019 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2020;44:e87‐e99.
Smeenge M, Barentsz J, Cosgrove D, et al. Role of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) in focal therapy of prostate cancer: report from a consensus panel. BJU Int. 2012;110:942‐948.
Beemsterboer PMM, Kranse R, De Koning HJ, Habbema JDF, Schröder FH. Changing role of 3 screening modalities in the european randomized study of screening for prostate cancer (Rotterdam). Int J Cancer. 1999;84:437‐441.
Rouvière 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.
Purohit RS, Shinohara K, Meng MV, Carroll PR. Imaging clinically localized prostate cancer. Urol Clin North Am. 2003;30:279‐293.
Görtz M, Nyarangi‐Dix J, Pursche L, et al. Impact of surgeon's experience in rigid versus elastic MRI/TRUS‐Fusion biopsy to detect significant prostate cancer using targeted and systematic cores. Cancers. 2022;14:886.
Ferriero M, Tuderti G, Muto GL, et al. Diagnostic performance of fusion (US/MRI guided) prostate biopsy: propensity score matched comparison of elastic versus rigid fusion system. World J Urol. 2022;40:991‐996.
Fletcher P, De Santis M, Ippoliti S, et al. Vector prostate biopsy: A novel magnetic resonance Imaging/Ultrasound image fusion transperineal biopsy technique using electromagnetic needle tracking under local anaesthesia. Eur Urol. 2023;83:249‐256.
Wegelin O, Van Melick HHE, Hooft L, 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;71:517‐531.
Vickers AJ. Effects of magnetic resonance imaging targeting on overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2021;80:567‐572.
Steinkohl F, Luger AK, Pichler R, et al. Visibility of MRI prostate lesions on b‐mode transrectal ultrasound. Med Ultrasonogr. 2018;20:441‐445.