Magnetic resonance/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy of the prostate compared to systematic 12-core biopsy for the diagnosis and characterization of prostate cancer: multi-institutional retrospective analysis of 389 patients

Mariotti, Guilherme Cayres; Costa, Daniel N.; Pedrosa, Iván; Falsarella, Priscila Mina; Martins, Tatiana; Roehrborn, Claus G.; Rofsky, Neil M.; Xi, Yin; Mussi, Thais C.; Queiroz, Marcos Roberto Gomes de; Lotan, Yair; Garcia, Rodrigo Gobbo; Lemos, Gustavo Caserta; Baroni, Ronaldo Hueb

doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.04.008

Cited by 31 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Distribution of GS (6/7/8/9/10) was 46/101/35/14/2 in Likert scores 4 and 5 versus 2/4/2/1/0 in Likert score 3 (P < 0.001). MCCL was 8 mm (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19) in Likert scores 4 and 5 versus 5 mm (2-15) in Likert score 3 (P < 0.05). The distribution of tumors detected, as well as GS differences in TB and SBx were evaluated.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…In the present study, the detection rate of clinically significant cancer for SBx and MRUS TB per patient was 46% (120/262) versus 70% (181/262; P < 0.0001), and that of clinically insignificant cancer for SBx and MRUS TB per patient was 15.3% (40/262) versus 8.7% (23/262; P < 0.0001), respectively. The MCCL was 5 mm (0.5-16) in SBx versus 8 mm (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19) in MRUS TB (P < 0.0001). MRUS TB resulted in significantly longer cancer core lengths.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…The utility of MRUS fusion biopsy has been reported in Western countries . As few reports about MRUS fusion biopsy have been reported in Asia, including Japan, the role of MRI and new biopsy techniques are under debate in Japan .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The utility of MRUS fusion biopsy has been reported in Western countries. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] As few reports about MRUS fusion biopsy have been reported in Asia, including Japan, the role of MRI and new biopsy techniques are under debate in Japan. 11 The biopsy techniques to target MRI-suspicious lesions include cognitive biopsy, in-bore MRI biopsy or MRUS image fusion biopsy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion‐targeted prostate biopsy using three‐dimensional ultrasound‐based organ‐tracking technology: Initial experience in Japan

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To evaluate the impact of magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion‐targeted prostate biopsy on the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer using real‐time three‐dimensional ultrasound‐based organ‐tracking technology. Methods The present study was a retrospective review of 262 consecutive patients with prostate‐specific antigen of 7.1 ng/mL (interquartile range 4.0–19.8). All patients received pre‐biopsy magnetic resonance imaging and had a suspicious lesion for clinically significant prostate cancer. All patients underwent a combination of systematic biopsy (6 cores) and three‐dimensional ultrasound‐based magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion‐targeted biopsy (2 cores). The positive rate of any cancer, positive rate of clinically significant prostate cancer, Gleason score and maximum cancer core length were compared between systematic biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion‐targeted prostate biopsy. Results Overall, the positive rate of any cancer per patient was 61% (160/262) in systematic biopsy versus 79% (207/262) in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion‐targeted biopsy (P < 0.0001); and that of clinically significant prostate cancer per patient was 46% (120/262) in systematic biopsy versus 70% (181/262) in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion‐targeted biopsy (P < 0.0001). The positive rate of any cancer per core was 21.7% (330/1523) in systematic biopsy versus 68.6% (406/592) in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion‐targeted biopsy (P < 0.0001), and that of clinically significant prostate cancer per core was 12.7% (193/1423) in systematic biopsy versus 60.3% (357/592) in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion‐targeted biopsy (P < 0.0001). Adding systematic biopsy leads to 13 more cancer cases (5%). The distribution of Gleason score (6/7/8/9/10) was 59/71/23/6/1 in systematic biopsy versus 48/105/36/15/2 in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion‐targeted biopsy (P = 0.005). The maximum cancer core length was 5 mm (0.5–16) in systematic biopsy versus 8 mm (1–19 mm) in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion‐targeted biopsy (P < 0.0001). Conclusions Three‐dimensional ultrasound‐based magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion‐targeted biopsy seems to be associated with a higher detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer, with fewer cores than systematic random biopsy. However, significant cancer can still be detected by the systematic technique only. A combination of systematic biopsy with the targeted biopsy technique would avoid the underdiagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion‐targeted prostate biopsy using three‐dimensional ultrasound‐based organ‐tracking technology: Initial experience in Japan

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The characteristics of the studies are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Of the 25 own control studies, we identified 5 studies [24,[32][33][34][35] recruiting mixed participants with initial biopsy data. All participants underwent mpMRI (1.5 or 3.0 T with/without endorectal coil) before prostate biopsy.…”

Section: Literature Review and Characteristics Of The Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Biopsy for Prostate Cancer in Biopsy-Naïve Men: A Meta-Analysis

Liu

Zhang

et al. 2019

Urol Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To investigate the diagnostic role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy (TB) for prostate cancer (PCa) in biopsy-naïve men. Materials and Methods: Own control studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to December 2018 were identified via a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library. We pooled relative sensitivity (or risk ratio [RR]) to compare diagnostic efficiency for PCa and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) between TB and systematic biopsy (SB). The independent role of either biopsy pathway was evaluated for participants with positive/negative MRI. Results: Thirty-one studies consisting of 25 own control studies and 6 RCTs were included. We identified 4,020 biopsy-naïve men with positive MRI who underwent two biopsies concurrently, with PCa/csPCa detection rates of 65.90 and 45.13%, respectively. TB and SB did not differ in the detection of any PCa (RR 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-1.05). However, TB detected more csPCa (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.10-1.30) and more PCa with a Gleason score ≥3+4 (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.07-1.34). Using a combined test as a reference, omitting SB resulted in detecting 12.81% less csPCa and 20.76% less clinically insignificant PCa (cinsPCa), and omitting TB resulted in detecting 25.69% less csPCa and 10.8% more cinsPCa. For patients with negative MRI, omitting SB led to underdetection of 30.29% of any PCa (10.9% of csPCa). Conclusions: Combining TB and SB increased the diagnostic accuracy of csPCa for biopsy-naïve men with positive MRI, and omitting SB for patients with a negative MRI would lead to the underdetection of nearly 10% of csPCa.

show abstract

mpMRT-Fusionsbiopsie: Stellenwert und Datenlage

Koneval

Sokolakis²,

Thurner³

et al. 2019

Uro-News

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Magnetic resonance/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy of the prostate compared to systematic 12-core biopsy for the diagnosis and characterization of prostate cancer: multi-institutional retrospective analysis of 389 patients

Cited by 31 publications

References 21 publications

Magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion‐targeted prostate biopsy using three‐dimensional ultrasound‐based organ‐tracking technology: Initial experience in Japan

Magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion‐targeted prostate biopsy using three‐dimensional ultrasound‐based organ‐tracking technology: Initial experience in Japan

Diagnostic Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Biopsy for Prostate Cancer in Biopsy-Naïve Men: A Meta-Analysis

mpMRT-Fusionsbiopsie: Stellenwert und Datenlage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About