22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Transperineal Magnetic Resonance Image Targeted Prostate Biopsy Versus Transperineal Template Prostate Biopsy in the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging can be used to guide prostate biopsy by targeting biopsies to areas in the prostate at high risk for cancer. We compared the detection of clinically significant and insignificant cancer by transperineal magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy and transperineal template guided prostate biopsy. A total of 182 men with a lesion suspicious for cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging underwent transperineal magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy using a cognitive registration technique, followed by systematic transperineal template guided prostate biopsy. The primary outcome was the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer. Clinical significance was defined using maximum cancer core length 4 mm or greater and/or Gleason grade 3 + 4 or greater (University College London definition 2). We secondarily evaluated other commonly used thresholds of clinically significant disease, including maximum cancer core length 6 mm or greater and/or Gleason grade 4 + 3 or greater, maximum cancer core length 3 mm or greater and/or Gleason grade 3 + 4 or greater, and maximum cancer core length 2 or greater mm and/or Gleason grade 3 + 4 or greater. Strategies were statistically compared with the McNemar test. Mean ± SD patient age was 63.3 ± 7.2 years. Median prostate specific antigen was 6.7 ng/ml (IQR 4.7-10.0). Clinically significant cancer was detected by magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy and template guided prostate biopsy in 103 (57%) and 113 of the 182 men (62%) (p = 0.174), and clinically insignificant cancer was detected in 17 (9.3%) and 31 (17.0%), respectively (p = 0.024). Prostate biopsy targeted to suspicious lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging has encouraging rates of detection of clinically significant cancer while also decreasing the detection rate of clinically insignificant cancer. This is achieved with fewer biopsy cores than for systematic template guided biopsy. Further prospective, multicenter, comparative trials of the performance of targeting strategies are needed to consider magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy an alternative to conventional systematic biopsy. Copyright © 2013 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection.

          •To compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsies with extended systematic biopsies for the detection of significant prostate cancer. •In all, 555 consecutive patients with suspicion of prostate cancer had pre-biopsy dynamic contrast-enhanced 1.5-tesla (T) MRI with pelvic coil, 10-12 transrectal ultrasound-guided extended systematic biopsies plus two targeted biopsies at any MRI area suspicious for malignancy. •Significant prostate cancer was defined as >5 mm total cancer length and/or any Gleason pattern >3. •Cancer length and grade at biopsy were reported and located on a 24-sector map. •Median (range) prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was 6.75 (0.18-100) ng/mL. •MRI was positive in 351 (63%) patients and, overall, 302 (54%) had cancer at extended systematic biopsies and/or targeted biopsies. Of 302 cancers detected, 249 (82%) were significant prostate cancers and 53 (18%) were nonsignificant prostate cancers. •Extended systematic biopsies did not detect 12 significant prostate cancers and targeted biopsies did not detect 13 significant prostate cancers. For significant prostate cancer detection, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of targeted biopsies were 0.95, 1.0 and 0.98. The values for extended systematic biopsies were 0.95, 0.83, and 0.88. •The detection accuracy of significant prostate cancer by targeted biopsies was higher than that by extended systematic biopsies (P < 0.001). Targeted biopsies also detected 16% more grade 4/5 cases and better quantified the cancer than extended systematic biopsies, with cancer length of 5.56 vs. 4.70 mm (P= 0.002). • A targeted biopsies-only strategy without extended systematic biopsies would have necessitated a mean of 3.8 cores performed in only 63% of patients with positive MRI and avoided the potentially unnecessary diagnosis of 13% (53/302) of nonsignificant prostate cancers. • Strategy of targeted biopsies alone at pre-biopsy MRI-suspicious areas is an attractive potential alternative to extended systematic biopsies for detection of significant prostate cancer. •Further studies are necessary to validate the strategy of targeted biopsies alone. © 2011 THE AUTHORS. BJU INTERNATIONAL © 2011 BJU INTERNATIONAL.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection, Localisation, and Characterisation of Prostate Cancer: Recommendations from a European Consensus Meeting

            Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) may have a role in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in men with raised serum prostate-specific antigen levels. Variations in technique and the interpretation of images have contributed to inconsistency in its reported performance characteristics. Our aim was to make recommendations on a standardised method for the conduct, interpretation, and reporting of prostate mpMRI for prostate cancer detection and localisation. A consensus meeting of 16 European prostate cancer experts was held that followed the UCLA-RAND Appropriateness Method and facilitated by an independent chair. Before the meeting, 520 items were scored for "appropriateness" by panel members, discussed face to face, and rescored. Agreement was reached in 67% of 260 items related to imaging sequence parameters. T2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced, and diffusion-weighted MRI were the key sequences incorporated into the minimum requirements. Consensus was also reached on 54% of 260 items related to image interpretation and reporting, including features of malignancy on individual sequences. A 5-point scale was agreed on for communicating the probability of malignancy, with a minimum of 16 prostatic regions of interest, to include a pictorial representation of suspicious foci. Limitations relate to consensus methodology. Dominant personalities are known to affect the opinions of the group and were countered by a neutral chairperson. Consensus was reached on a number of areas related to the conduct, interpretation, and reporting of mpMRI for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer. Before optimal dissemination of this technology, these outcomes will require formal validation in prospective trials. Copyright © 2010 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Characterizing Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Template Prostate Mapping Biopsy

              Definitions of prostate cancer risk are limited since accurate attribution of the cancer grade and burden is not possible due to the random and systematic errors associated with transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy. Transperineal prostate mapping biopsy may have a role in accurate risk stratification. We defined the transperineal prostate mapping biopsy characteristics of clinically significant disease. A 3-dimensional model of each gland and individual cancer was reconstructed using 107 radical whole mount specimens. We performed 500 transperineal prostate mapping simulations per case by varying needle targeting errors to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive value to detect lesions 0.2 ml or greater, or 0.5 ml or greater. Definitions of clinically significant cancer based on a combination of Gleason grade and cancer burden (cancer core length) were derived. Mean±SD patient age was 61±6.4 years (range 44 to 74) and mean prostate specific antigen was 9.7±5.9 ng/ml (range 0.8 to 36.2). We reconstructed 665 foci. The total cancer core length from all positive biopsies for a particular lesion that detected more than 95% of lesions 0.5 ml or greater and 0.2 ml or greater was 10 mm or greater and 6 mm or greater, respectively. The maximum cancer core length that detected more than 95% of lesions 0.5 ml or greater and 0.2 ml or greater was 6 mm or greater and 4 mm or greater, respectively. We combined these cancer burden thresholds with dominant and nondominant Gleason pattern 4 to derive 2 definitions of clinically significant disease. Transperineal prostate mapping may provide an effective method to risk stratify men with localized prostate cancer. The definitions that we present require prospective validation. Copyright © 2011 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of Urology
                Journal of Urology
                Elsevier BV
                0022-5347
                1527-3792
                March 2013
                March 2013
                : 189
                : 3
                : 860-866
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom
                [2 ]Division of Surgery, Urology Department, University College London Hospitals Trust, London, United Kingdom
                [3 ]Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
                [4 ]Department of Histopathology, University College Hospital London, London, United Kingdom
                [5 ]Department of Radiology, University College Hospital London, London, United Kingdom
                [6 ]National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust/University College London Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, London, United Kingdom
                Article
                10.1016/j.juro.2012.10.009
                23063807
                fd31df97-cfc5-4821-b279-aecdf7256a4b
                © 2013

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article