Definitions of terms, processes and a minimum dataset for transperineal prostate biopsies: a standardization approach of the <scp>G</scp>insburg <scp>S</scp>tudy <scp>G</scp>roup for <scp>E</scp>nhanced <scp>P</scp>rostate <scp>D</scp>iagnostics

Kuru, Timur H.; Wadhwa, Karan; Chang, Richard T. M.; Echeverría, Lina María Carmona; Roethke, Matthias; Polson, Alexander; Rottenberg, Giles; Koo, Brendan; Lawrence, Edward M.; Seidenader, Jonas; Gnanapragasam, Vincent; Axell, Richard G.; Roth, Wilfried; Warren, Anne Y.; Doble, Andrew; Muir, Gordon; Popert, Rick; Schlemmer, Heinz Peter; Hadaschik, Boris; Kastner, Christof

doi:10.1111/bju.12132

Cited by 131 publications

(123 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

121

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…45 Conversely, the Ginsburg system does not differentiate the apex, mid and base of the prostate; although this can be overcome by the inking of biopsy cores, this will incur additional time and cost. 26,28 It is important to note that in clinical practice factors other than MRI are used to help determine whether a patient requires further investigation. This study has been designed to assess the FN rate for MRI alone; combining imaging with other investigations to reduce FNs are required in the future.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…28 Patients had targeted biopsies of MRI detected lesion or lesions (Likert score ≥3), followed by 24 to 36 systematic sectoral biopsies. 27 …”

Section: Biopsy Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…28 Lesion location was described according to the Ginsburg sector map. 28 Each core was measured and the percentage of cancer estimated.…”

Section: Histopathology and Correlation With Mrimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…28 Lesion location was described according to the Ginsburg sector map. 28 Each core was measured and the percentage of cancer estimated. Significant cancer was defined by University College London (UCL) criteria 29 � green (Gleason ≤3+3, maximum cancer core length [mCCL] ≤3 mm), amber (Gleason 3+4, ≤5 mm, or Gleason 3+3, mCCL 4-10 mm) and red (Gleason ≥4+3 or Gleason 3+4, mCCL ≥6 mm or Gleason 3+3, mCCL ≥11 mm).…”

Section: Histopathology and Correlation With Mrimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Investigating the ability of multiparametric MRI to exclude significant prostate cancer prior to transperineal biopsy

Serrao

Barrett

Wadhwa

et al. 2015

CUAJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: We characterized false negative prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reporting by using histology derived from MRI-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided transperineal (MTTP) fusion biopsies.Methods: In total, 148 consecutive patients were retrospectively reviewed. Men underwent multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), reported by a consultant/attending radiologist in line with European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) standards. MTTP biopsy of the lesions was performed according to the Ginsburg recommendations. Cases with an MRI-histology mismatch were identified and underwent a second read by an experienced radiologist. A third review was performed with direct histology comparison to determine a true miss from an MRI-occult cancer. Statistical analysis was performed with McNemar's test. Results: False negative lesions were identified in 29 MRI examinations (19.6%), with a total of 46 lesions. Most false negative lesions (21/46) were located in the anterior sectors of the prostate. The second read led to a significant decrease of false-negative lesions with 7/29 further studies identified as positive on a patientby-patient basis (24.1% of studies, p = 0.016) and 11/46 lesions (23.9%; p = 0.001). Of these, 30 lesions following the first read and 23 lesions after the second read were considered significant cancer according to the University College London criteria. However, on direct comparison with histology, most lesions were MRI occult. Conclusion: We demonstrate that MRI can fail to detect clinically relevant lesions. Improved results were achieved with a second read but despite this, a number of lesions remain MRI-occult. Further advances in imaging are required to reduce false negative results. IntroductionCurrent methods for risk stratification of prostate cancer, including serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies, are limited by sampling error and low sensitivity and specificity.1-3 TRUSbiopsy can lead to inaccurate grading of 32% to 42% of cancers, 4-6 and may fail to detect 30% to 50% of cancers, particularly tumours in the anterior portion of the prostate. 7-12The improvement in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in detecting prostate cancer has led to its recommendation in high-risk patients following a negative TRUS biopsy.13 MRI can then be used to guide subsequent biopsy either cognitively, in-bore (direct MRI-targeting), or by using MRI-TRUS fusion techniques.14-17 The latter combines anatomical MRI localization with the real-time guidance of ultrasound. Repeat biopsy is often undertaken by the transperineal (TP) route as this offers potential advantages over a transrectal route, including better sampling of the anterior and apical regions of the prostate, reduced false negative results, and a sterile approach. 18 mpMRI has the potential to accurately exclude prostate cancer and reduce biopsy burden. 19,20 To achieve this, it must have a high negative predictive value (NPV) on a patient-by-patient basis and maintain ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…28 Patients had targeted biopsies of MRI detected lesion or lesions (Likert score ≥3), followed by 24 to 36 systematic sectoral biopsies. 27 …”

Section: Biopsy Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…28 Lesion location was described according to the Ginsburg sector map. 28 Each core was measured and the percentage of cancer estimated.…”

Section: Histopathology and Correlation With Mrimentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Histopathology and Correlation With Mrimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Investigating the ability of multiparametric MRI to exclude significant prostate cancer prior to transperineal biopsy

Serrao

Barrett

Wadhwa

et al. 2015

CUAJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the repeat biopsy, we especially focused on the anterior sector and mid-sector biopsies. The definition of anterior sector or mid-sector was based on the biopsy map as recommended by the Ginsburg Study Group (9). Variation in the number of cores taken during biopsy was at the discretion of individual urologists at the time of biopsy depending on the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels or prostate volume.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison Between a Combined Transrectal and Transperineal Approach and a Transrectal Approach for Prostate Rebiopsy

Shida

Hakariya

Takehara

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Aim: To evaluate whether a combination method involving the transrectal (TR) and transperineal (TP)approach 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were 49.2% (551/1,119), 34.7% (75/216), 33.3% (20/60), 26.7% (4/15) Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy has been recognized as the standard method for confirming a prostate cancer diagnosis worldwide. The utility of magnetic resonance (MR)-guided biopsy has been indicated in recent reports (1, 2). We agree with the opinion, however, that discussion on TRUS biopsy is still important due to its cost and equipment. In short, we think that MR-guided biopsy is often difficult in developing countries. After the initial introduction of the sextant prostate biopsy technique proposed by Hodge (3), the TRUS-guided biopsy technique has evolved with the introduction of extended 10-to 12-core biopsy and, subsequently, to over 20-core saturation biopsy strategies to minimize the sampling error and improve the accuracy of prostate cancer detection (4). However, it is well-recognized that even the standard 12-core TRUS-guided biopsy can miss up to 30% of cancers (5). TRUS-guided biopsy predominantly targets the lateral and posterior peripheral gland and can miss anteriorly located cancers. Therefore, several studies have focused on methods for anterior and apical biopsies.Transperineal (TP) biopsy of the prostate is an alternative approach that is less frequently performed. Kakehi et al. (6) reviewed 212,065 biopsies carried out at 548 institutions during the period between 2004 and 2006 in Japan. Of the 212,065 biopsies, 76% were carried out using the transrectal (TR) approach, 23% using the TP approach and only 1% using the combined methods of TR and TP (TR+TP). Ong et al. (7) reported that TP biopsy accounted for <0.5% of all prostate biopsies performed in Australia in 2007. However, there has been increasing interest in TP biopsy in recent 4685This article is freely accessible online.

show abstract

MRI pathway and TRUS-guided biopsy for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer

Drost

Roobol

Nieboer

et al. 2017

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Definitions of terms, processes and a minimum dataset for transperineal prostate biopsies: a standardization approach of the Ginsburg Study Group for Enhanced Prostate Diagnostics

Cited by 131 publications

References 19 publications

Investigating the ability of multiparametric MRI to exclude significant prostate cancer prior to transperineal biopsy

Investigating the ability of multiparametric MRI to exclude significant prostate cancer prior to transperineal biopsy

Comparison Between a Combined Transrectal and Transperineal Approach and a Transrectal Approach for Prostate Rebiopsy

MRI pathway and TRUS-guided biopsy for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About