Journals / Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology / 2015 / Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 4

Multiparametric MRI guidance in first-time prostate biopsies: what is the real benefit?

Pages
271–276
DOI
—
🏛️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)

CONCLUSIONIn the first set of transrectal prostate biopsies, mp-MRI guidance did not increase the diagnostic yield significantly.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:PURPOSE With the increased recognition of the capabilities of prostate multiparametric (mp) magnetic reso-nance imaging (MRI), attempts are being made to incorporate MRI into routine prostate biopsies.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this study, we aimed to analyze the diagnostic yield via cognitive fusion, transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided, and in-bore MRI-guided biopsies in biopsy-naive patients with positive findings for prostate cancer screening.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:CONCLUSIONIn the first set of transrectal prostate biopsies, mp-MRI guidance did not increase the diagnostic yield significantly.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2012 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

PURPOSE With the increased recognition of the capabilities of prostate multiparametric (mp) magnetic reso-nance imaging (MRI), attempts are being made to incorporate MRI into routine prostate biopsies. In this study, we aimed to analyze the diagnostic yield via cognitive fusion, transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided, and in-bore MRI-guided biopsies in biopsy-naive patients with positive findings for prostate cancer screening. METHODSCharts of 140 patients, who underwent transrectal prostate biopsy after the adaptation of mp-MRI into our routine clinical practice, were reviewed retrospectively. Patients with previous negative bi-opsies (n=24) and digital rectal examination findings suspicious for >=cT3 prostate cancer (n=16) were excluded. T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging, and dynamic contrast-enhanced im-aging were included in mp-MRI. Cognitive fusion biopsies were performed after a review of mp-MRI data, whereas TRUS-guided biopsies were performed blinded to MRI information. In-bore biopsies were conducted by means of real-time targeting under MRI guidance. RESULTSBetween January 2012 and February 2014, a total of 100 patients fulfilling the inclusion cri-teria underwent TRUS-guided (n=37), cognitive fusion (n=49), and in-bore (n=14) biop-sies. Mean age, serum prostate specific antigen level, and prostate size did not differ signifi-cantly among the study groups. In TRUS-guided biopsy group, 51.3% were diagnosed with prostate cancer, while the same ratio was 55.1% and 71.4% in cognitive fusion and in-bore bi-opsy groups, respectively (P = 0.429). Clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate was 69.1%, 70.3%, and 90% in TRUS-guided, cognitive fusion, and in-bore biopsy groups, respectively (P = 0.31). According to histopathologic variables in the prostatectomy specimen, significant prostate cancer was detected in 85.7%, 93.3%, and 100% of patients in TRUS-guided, cognitive fusion, and in-bore biopsy groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONIn the first set of transrectal prostate biopsies, mp-MRI guidance did not increase the diagnostic yield significantly.

🔖

Cite This Article

ACAR, Ö., ESEN, T., ÇOLAKOĞLU, B., VURAL, M., ONAY, A., SAĞLICAN, Y., TÜRKBEY, B., ROZANES, İ. (2015). Multiparametric MRI guidance in first-time prostate biopsies: what is the real benefit?. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 4, 271–276. https://ajindex.com/articles/350052

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (5)

  1. Welch HG, Fisher ES, Gottlieb DJ, Barry MJ. De- tection of prostate cancer via biopsy in the Medi- care-SEER population during the PSA era. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99:1395-1400. [CrossRef] Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 1989; 142:71-75.
  2. Haas GP, Delongchamps N, Brawley OW, Wang CY, de la Roza G. The worldwide epidemiology of prostate cancer: perspectives from autopsy studies. Can J Urol 2008; 15:3866-3871.
  3. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22:746-757. [CrossRef] Hoeks CM, Schouten MG, Bomers JG, et al. Three-tesla magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy in men with increased prostate-specific antigen and repeated, negative, random, system- atic, transrectal ultrasound biopsies: Detection of clinically significant prostate cancers. Eur Urol 2012; 62:902-909. [CrossRef] Turkbey B, Mani H, Shah V, et al. Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to de- tect cancer: Histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in custom- ized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. J Urol 2011; 186:1818-1824. [CrossRef] Bjurlin MA, Meng X, Le Nobin J, et al. Optimi- zation of prostate biopsy: The role of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in detection, localization and risk assessment. J Urol 2014; 192:648-658. [CrossRef] Ahmed HU, Hu Y, Carter T, et al. Characterizing clinically significant prostate cancer using template prostate mapping biopsy. J Urol 2011; 186:458- 464. [CrossRef] Bastian PJ, Mangold LA, Epstein JI, Partin AW. Characteristics of insignificant clinical T1c pros- tate tumors. A contemporary analysis. Cancer 2004; 101:2001-2005. [CrossRef] D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatecto- my or external beam radiation therapy for pa- tients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma in the prostate specific antigen era. Cancer 2002; 95:281-286. [CrossRef] Partin AW, Yoo J, Carter HB, et al. The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer. J Urol 1993; 150:110-114.
  4. Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. Prediction of prog- nosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol 1974; 111:58-64.
  5. Stamey TA, Freiha FS, McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Whittemore AS, Schmid HP. Localized pr