SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Yeni Üroloji Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 16 Issue: 2

Single center results of magnetic resonance imaging ultrasound guided fusion prostate biopsy obtained patients

Manyetik rezonans görüntüleme-ultrason füzyon prostat biyopsisi tek merkez sonuçları

Sercan Yilmaz(Health Sciences University, Gulhane Training and Research Hospital, Department of Urology)0000-0001-6820-6708
Halil Çağrı Aybal(Kahramankazan Hamdi Eris State Hospital, Department of Urology)0000-0001-9123-6139
Hakan Özdemir(Diason Ultrasonography Center)
Eymen Gazel(Acıbadem University Ankara Hospital, Department of Urology)0000-0002-6483-9249
Mehmet Yılmaz(Zile State Hospital, Department of Urology)0000-0003-3774-9982
Engin Kaya(Health Sciences University, Gulhane Training and Research Hospital, Department of Urology)0000-0002-5272-572X
Serdar Yalçın(Health Sciences University, Gulhane Training and Research Hospital, Department of Urology)0000-0003-4586-7591
Ali Oner(Gazi University School of Medicine, Department of Radiology)0000-0003-1123-6521
Mehmet Yorubulut(Acibadem University, Ankara Hospital, Department of Radiology)0000-0003-1747-685X
Lütfi Tunç(Gazi University School of Medicine, Department of Urology)0000-0002-7338-3909
Pages
—
Publication Date
2021-06-29
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results : Overall prostate cancer detection rate was 36.3%.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective : We aimed to evaluate magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound guided fusion prostate biopsy (MRI- US FPBx) results from a single center and compare with current literature.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Methods: Between January 2016 and July 2019, MRI-US FPBx pathological and imaging results of 358 men were retrospectively analyzed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results : Overall prostate cancer detection rate was 36.3%.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2016 Verileri
⚙️Variables:prostate cancer · biopsy · MRI

Abstract

Objective : We aimed to evaluate magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound guided fusion prostate biopsy (MRI- US FPBx) results from a single center and compare with current literature. Material and Methods: Between January 2016 and July 2019, MRI-US FPBx pathological and imaging results of 358 men were retrospectively analyzed. PI-RADS scores were determined as 3, 4 and 5 in 222 (62%), 107 (29.8%) and 29 (8.1%) patients, respectively. Totally 454 lesions were underwent MRI-US FPBx. 303 (66.7%) lesions were scored as PI-RADS 3, 120 (26.4%) lesions were scored as PI-RADS 4 and 31 (6.8%) lesions were scored as PI-RADS 5. 315 (69.3%) of lesions were in peripheral zone, 26 (5.7%) were in central zone, 111 (24.4%) were in transitional zone and 2 of them were in anterior fibromuscular stroma. Results : Overall prostate cancer detection rate was 36.3%. Concerning detection rates, MRI-US FPBx alone and transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx) alone were 27.6% and 26.5%, respectively. Cancer detection rate only through MRI-US FPBx PIRADS-3 and PI-RADS 4&5 were 6.9% and 20.6%, respectively. Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) rates were evaluated and csPCa to overall prostate cancer (PCa) rates for TRUS-Bx, MRI-US FPBx and combined techniques were 16.8%, 35.4% and 39.2%, respectively. Results of 11 patients were evaluated as benign. Conclusion : MRI-US FPBx significantly increases success rate of prostate biopsy procedure. Regarding current MRI technology, it is not appropriate to consider MRI-US FPBx as a stand-alone biopsy option without concomitant with TRUS-Bx.

Özet

Amaç : Çalışmamızda tek merkeze ait manyetik rezonans görüntüleme-ultrason füzyon prostat biyopsisi (MRI-US FPBx ) sonuçlarını değerlendirmek ve güncel literatürle karşılaştırmak istedik. Gereç ve Yöntemler :: Ocak 2016 ile Temmuz 2019 arasında 358 erkeğin MRI-US FPBx sonuçları retrospektif olarak analiz edildi. PI-RADS skorları 222 (% 62), 107 (% 29.8) ve 29 (% 8.1) hastada sırasıyla 3, 4 ve 5 olarak tespit edildi. Toplam 454 lezyona MRI-US FPBx uygulandı. 303 (% 66,7) lezyon PI-RADS 3, 120 (% 26,4) lezyon PI-RADS 4 ve 31 (% 6,8) lezyon PI-RADS 5 olarak skorlandı. Lezyonların 315'i (% 69,3) periferik zonda, 26'sı (% 5,7) santral zonda, 111'i (% 24,4) geçiş zonu ve 2'si anterior fibromüsküler stromada idi. Bulgular : Genel prostat kanseri (PCa) tespit oranı% 36.3 idi. Tek başına MRI-US FPBx ve tek başına transrektal ultrasonografi eşliğinde prostat biyopsisi (TRUS-Bx) kanser saptama oranları sırasıyla % 27.6 ve% 26.5 idi. PI-RADS-3 ve PI-RADS 4 & 5 için MRI-US FPBx'e özgü kanser tespit oranı sırasıyla % 6,9 ve% 20,6 idi. Klinik olarak önemli prostat kanseri (csPCa) oranları değerlendirildi ve TRUS-Bx, MRI-US FPBx ve kombine teknikler için csPCa ve PCa oranları sırasıyla % 16.8, % 35.4 ve % 39.2 idi. 11 hastanın biyopsi sonuçları benigndi. Sonuç : MRI-US FPBx , prostat biyopsi prosedürünün başarı oranını önemli ölçüde artırır. Ancak mevcut MRI teknolojisine göre, MRI-US FPBx'i TRUS-Bx olmaksızın bağımsız bir biyopsi seçeneği olarak düşünmek uygun olmadığı görüşündeyiz.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yilmaz, S., Aybal, H. Ç., Özdemir, H., Gazel, E., Yılmaz, M., Kaya, E., Yalçın, S., Oner, A., Yorubulut, M., Tunç, L. (2021). Single center results of magnetic resonance imaging ultrasound guided fusion prostate biopsy obtained patients. Yeni Üroloji Dergisi, Volume: 16 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.33719/yud.2021;16-2-850577

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (30)

  1. Hernandez-Aragues I, Baniandres-Rodriguez O. Basal cell carcinoma of the scrotum. Actas Urol Esp. 2016; 40(9):592-593.
  2. Hoffman RM. Clinical practice. Screening for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011; 365(21):2013-2019.
  3. Quon JS, Moosavi B, Khanna M, et al. False positive and false negative diagnoses of prostate cancer at multi-parametric prostate MRI in active surveillance. Insights Imaging. 2015; 6(4):449-463.
  4. Bonekamp D, Jacobs MA, El-Khouli R, Stoianovici D, Macura KJ. Advancements in MR imaging of the prostate: from diagnosis to interventions. Radiographics. 2011; 31(3):677-703.
  5. Siddiqui MM, George AK, Rubin R, et al. Efficiency of Prostate Cancer Diagnosis by MR/Ultrasound Fusion- Guided Biopsy vs Standard Extended-Sextant Biopsy for MR-Visible Lesions. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016; 108(9).
  6. Defontaines J, Salomon L, Champy C, et al. [Prostate cancer diagnostic by saturation randomized biopsy versus rigid targeted biopsy]. Prog Urol. 2017; 27(16):1023- 1030.
  7. Demirtaş A, Sönmez G, Tombul Ş T, Demirtaş T, Akgün H. Comparison of the Upgrading Rates of International Society of Urological Pathology Grades and Tumor Laterality in Patients Undergoing Standard 12-Core Prostate Biopsy versus Fusion Prostate Biopsy for Prostate Cancer. Urol Int. 2019; 103(3):256-261.
  8. Merrett C, Mannas M, Black PC, Zargar H. Magnet Before the Needle Commentary on: MRI-targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-cancer Diagnosis (PRECISION Trial). Urology. 2018; 118:1-2.
  9. Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH. Diagnostic Performance of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2017; 72(2):177-88.
  10. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016; 69(1):16-40.
  11. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016; 40(2):244-252.
  12. Benelli A, Vaccaro C, Guzzo S, et al. The role of MRI/ TRUS fusion biopsy in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Ther Adv Urol. 2020; 12:1756287220916613.
  13. Stabile A, Giganti F, Rosenkrantz AB, et al. Multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis: current status and future directions. Nat Rev Urol. 2020; 17(1):41-61.
  14. Gayet M, van der Aa A, Beerlage HP, et al. The value of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography (MRI/US)-fusion biopsy platforms in prostate cancer detection: a systematic review. BJU Int. 2016; 117:392- 400.
  15. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017; 389:815-22.
  16. Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU - ESTRO - ESUR - SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer 2020. European Association of Urology Guidelines 2020 Edition. Paper Presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam 2020. Arnhem, The Netherlands: European Association of Urology Guidelines Office; 2020.
  17. Fourcade A, Payrard C, Tissot V, et al. The combination of targeted and systematic prostate biopsies is the best protocol for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Scand J Urol. 2018; 52(3):174-179.
  18. Porpiglia F, Manfredi M, Mele F, et al. Diagnostic Pathway with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Standard Pathway: Results from a Randomized Prospective Study in Biopsy-naïve Patients with Suspected Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2017; 72(2):282- 288.
  19. Costa DN, Pedrosa I, Donato F, Jr., Roehrborn CG, Rofsky NM. MR Imaging-Transrectal US Fusion for Targeted Prostate Biopsies: Implications for Diagnosis and Clinical Management. Radiographics. 2015; 35(3):696- 708.
  20. Valerio M, Donaldson I, Emberton M, et al. Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsy: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol. 2015; 68(1):8-19.
  21. Pinto PA, Chung PH, Rastinehad AR, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol. 2011; 186(4):1281- 1285.
  22. Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, et al. A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial. Eur Urol. 2014; 66(2):343-351.
  23. Stabile A, Dell’Oglio P, Gandaglia G, et al. Not All Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsies Are Equal: The Impact of the Type of Approach and Operator Expertise on the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2018; 1(2):120-128.
  24. Cash H, Maxeiner A, Stephan C, et al. The detection of significant prostate cancer is correlated with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) in MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. World J Urol. 2016; 34(4):525-532.
  25. Murphy IG, NiMhurchu E, Gibney RG, McMahon CJ. MRI-directed cognitive fusion-guided biopsy of the anterior prostate tumors. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2017; 23(2):87-93.
  26. Sönmez G, Tombul Ş T, İmamoğlu H, et al. Multiparametric MRI fusion-guided prostate biopsy in biopsy naive patients: Preliminary results from 80 patients. Turk J Urol. 2019; 45:196-201.
  27. Truong M, Frye TP. Magnetic resonance imaging detection of prostate cancer in men with previous negative prostate biopsy. Transl Androl Urol. 2017; 6(3):424-31.
  28. Mendhiratta N, Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, et al. Prebiopsy MRI and MRI-ultrasound Fusion-targeted Prostate Biopsy in Men With Previous Negative Biopsies: Impact on Repeat Biopsy Strategies. Urology. 2015; 86(6):1192-1198.
  29. Kenigsberg AP, Renson A, Rosenkrantz AB, et al. Optimizing the Number of Cores Targeted During Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Fusion Target Biopsy. Eur Urol Oncol. 2018; 1:418-425.
  30. Sonmez G, Demirtas T, Tombul ST, Ozturk F, Demirtas A. What is the ideal number of biopsy cores per lesion in targeted prostate biopsy? Prostate Int. 2020; 8(3):112- 115.