ABSTRACT
Objective
To compare detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason 7 or
above) between standard transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy (TRUSGB) and software-assisted
systematic biopsy (SASB) using magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion in the setting
of negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in biopsy-naïve patients.
Methods
We reviewed our prospectively maintained database of consecutive men that underwent
prostate biopsy following mpMRI from September 2015 to December 2016. Patients with
no prior biopsy (ie, biopsy naïve) whose mpMRI demonstrated no targetable lesions
were included. Patients underwent either TRUSGB (n = 23) or SASB (n = 29). SASB was
performing using the MRI/US fusion systematic template. Prebiopsy data were collected,
and the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer was compared between
biopsy approaches.
Results
Baseline patient characteristics were similar between the TRUSGB and SASB groups.
Clinically significant prostate cancer was found in no patients undergoing TRUSGB
and in 6 patients undergoing SASB (0 vs 21%, P = .028).
Conclusion
Based on our institutional experience, SASB is associated with a higher detection
rate of clinically significant prostate cancer when compared to TRUSGB for biopsy-naïve
patients with negative prostate mpMRI. Software co-registration of the MRI and ultrasound
image may optimize the distribution of biopsy cores allowing for improved prostate
cancer detection compared to conventional TRUSGB.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to UrologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Identification of pathologically insignificant prostate cancer is not accurate in unscreened men.Br J Cancer. 2014; 110: 2405-2411
- Identifying candidates for active surveillance: an evaluation of the repeat biopsy strategy for men with favorable risk prostate cancer.J Urol. 2012; 188: 762-767
- Prospective evaluation of prostate cancer detected on biopsies 1, 2, 3 and 4: when should we stop?.J Urol. 2001; 166: 1679-1683
- Zonal distribution of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Correlation with histologic pattern and direction of spread.Am J Surg Pathol. 1988; 12: 897-906
- Significant discrepancies between diagnostic and pathologic Gleason sums in prostate cancer: the predictive role of age and prostate-specific antigen.Urology. 2008; 72: 882-886
- Prostate cancers scored as Gleason 6 on prostate biopsy are frequently Gleason 7 tumors at radical prostatectomy: implication on outcome.J Urol. 2006; 176: 979-984
- Accuracy and agreement of PIRADSv2 for prostate cancer mpMRI: a multireader study.J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017; 45: 579
- Detection of prostate cancer with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI): effect of dedicated reader education on accuracy and confidence of index and anterior cancer diagnosis.Abdom Imaging. 2015; 40: 134
- How good is MRI at detecting and characterizing cancer within the prostate?.Eur Urol. 2006; 50: 1163-1175
- Dynamic contrast-enhanced-magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of intraprostatic prostate cancer: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens.Urology. 2009; 74: 1094-1099
- Multiparametric 3 T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds.J Urol. 2011; 186: 1818
- Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection.BJU Int. 2011; 108: E171-E178
- Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review.Eur Urol. 2013; 63: 125-149
- Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance–ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen.Eur Urol. 2014; 65: 809-815
- Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound fusion biopsy detect prostate cancer in patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies.J Urol. 2012; 188: 2152-2157
- Negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate predicts absence of clinically significant prostate cancer on 12-core template prostate biopsy.Urology. 2017; 105: 118-122
- Predictive value of negative 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate on 12-core biopsy results.BJU Int. 2016; 118: 515-520
- Determination of the role of negative magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate in clinical practice: is biopsy still necessary?.Urology. 2017; 102: 190-197
- PI-RADS Prostate Imaging—Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2.Eur Urol. 2016; 69: 16-40
- Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial Risk Calculator 2.0 for the prediction of low- versus high-grade prostate cancer.Urology. 2014; 83: 1362-1368
- Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted vs. conventional transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: single-institution, matched cohort comparison.Urol Oncol. 2015; 33: 109, e1-6
- Evolution of repeat prostate biopsy strategies incorporating transperineal and MRI-TRUS fusion techniques.World J Urol. 2014; 32: 945-950
- Prostate cancer: Performance characteristics of combined T2W and DW-MRI scoring in the setting of template transperineal re-biopsy using MR-TRUS fusion.Eur Radiol. 2014; 24: 1497-1505
- Optimization of prostate biopsy: the role of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in detection, localization and risk assessment.J Urol. 2014; 192: 648-658
- Detection and localization of prostate cancer with the targeted biopsy strategy based on ADC map: a prospective large-scale cohort study.J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012; 35: 1414-1421
- Usefulness of pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical variables to reduce initial prostate biopsy in men with suspected clinically localized prostate cancer.J Urol. 2013; 190: 502-508
- Evaluation of a novel precision template-guided biopsy system for detecting prostate cancer.BJU Int. 2008; 102: 546-550
- Spatial tracking of targeted prostate biopsy locations: moving towards effective focal partial prostate gland ablation with improved treatment planning.Curr Urol Rep. 2017; 18: 93
- Prostate magnetic resonance imaging: the truth lies in the eye of the beholder.Urol Oncol. 2018; (Advance online publication)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.12.013
Article info
Publication history
Published online: June 26, 2018
Accepted:
June 12,
2018
Received in revised form:
June 7,
2018
Received:
February 27,
2018
Footnotes
Financial Disclosure: Dr. Gerald Andriole is involved in clinical research with Medivation, Progenics, and Blue Earth Diagnostics. The remaining authors declare that they have no relevant financial interests
Identification
Copyright
© 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
