1
|
Guenzel K, Lukas Baumgaertner G, Padhani AR, Luckau J, Carsten Lock U, Ozimek T, Heinrich S, Schlegel J, Busch J, Magheli A, Struck J, Borgmann H, Penzkofer T, Hamm B, Hinz S, Alexander Hamm C. Diagnostic Utility of Artificial Intelligence-assisted Transperineal Biopsy Planning in Prostate Cancer Suspected Men: A Prospective Cohort Study. Eur Urol Focus 2024; 10:833-842. [PMID: 38688825 DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2024.04.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/30/2024] [Revised: 03/22/2024] [Accepted: 04/12/2024] [Indexed: 05/02/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE Accurate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reporting is essential for transperineal prostate biopsy (TPB) planning. Although approved computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) tools may assist urologists in this task, evidence of improved clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection is lacking. Therefore, we aimed to document the diagnostic utility of using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and CAD for biopsy planning compared with PI-RADS alone. METHODS A total of 262 consecutive men scheduled for TPB at our referral centre were analysed. Reported PI-RADS lesions and an US Food and Drug Administration-cleared CAD tool were used for TPB planning. PI-RADS and CAD lesions were targeted on TPB, while four (interquartile range: 2-5) systematic biopsies were taken. The outcomes were the (1) proportion of csPCa (grade group ≥2) and (2) number of targeted lesions and false-positive rate. Performance was tested using free-response receiver operating characteristic curves and the exact Fisher-Yates test. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS Overall, csPCa was detected in 56% (146/262) of men, with sensitivity of 92% and 97% (p = 0.007) for PI-RADS- and CAD-directed TPB, respectively. In 4% (10/262), csPCa was detected solely by CAD-directed biopsies; in 8% (22/262), additional csPCa lesions were detected. However, the number of targeted lesions increased by 54% (518 vs 336) and the false-positive rate doubled (0.66 vs 1.39; p = 0.009). Limitations include biopsies only for men at clinical/radiological suspicion and no multidisciplinary review of MRI before biopsy. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS The tested CAD tool for TPB planning improves csPCa detection at the cost of an increased number of lesions sampled and false positives. This may enable more personalised biopsy planning depending on urological and patient preferences. PATIENT SUMMARY The computer-aided diagnosis tool tested for transperineal prostate biopsy planning improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer at the cost of an increased number of lesions sampled and false positives. This may enable more personalised biopsy planning depending on urological and patient preferences.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karsten Guenzel
- Department of Urology, Vivantes Klinikum Am Urban, Berlin, Germany; Prostate-Diagnostic-Centre Berlin, PDZB, Berlin, Germany; Department of Urology, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Neuruppin, Germany.
| | | | - Anwar R Padhani
- Paul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Hospital, Middlesex, UK
| | - Johannes Luckau
- Department of Urology, Vivantes Klinikum Am Urban, Berlin, Germany
| | | | - Tomasz Ozimek
- Department of Urology, Vivantes Klinikum Am Urban, Berlin, Germany
| | - Stefan Heinrich
- Department of Urology, Vivantes Klinikum Am Urban, Berlin, Germany
| | - Jakob Schlegel
- Department of Urology, Vivantes Klinikum Am Urban, Berlin, Germany
| | - Jonas Busch
- Department of Urology, Vivantes Klinikum Am Urban, Berlin, Germany
| | - Ahmed Magheli
- Department of Urology, Vivantes Klinikum Am Urban, Berlin, Germany
| | - Julian Struck
- Department of Urology, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Neuruppin, Germany
| | - Hendrik Borgmann
- Department of Urology, Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Neuruppin, Germany
| | - Tobias Penzkofer
- Department of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Berlin Institute of Health (BIH), Berlin, Germany
| | - Bernd Hamm
- Department of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Stefan Hinz
- Department of Urology, Vivantes Klinikum Am Urban, Berlin, Germany; Department of Urology, Magdeburg University Medical Center, Otto von Guericke University, Magdeburg, Germany
| | - Charlie Alexander Hamm
- Department of Radiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Berlin Institute of Health (BIH), Berlin, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Beatrici E, Frego N, Chiarelli G, Sordelli F, Mancon S, Saitta C, De Carne F, Garofano G, Arena P, Avolio PP, Gobbo A, Uleri A, Contieri R, Paciotti M, Lazzeri M, Hurle R, Casale P, Buffi NM, Lughezzani G. A Comparative Evaluation of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Micro-Ultrasound for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients with Prior Negative Biopsies. Diagnostics (Basel) 2024; 14:525. [PMID: 38472997 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14050525] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/30/2024] [Revised: 02/25/2024] [Accepted: 02/27/2024] [Indexed: 03/14/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The diagnostic process for prostate cancer after a negative biopsy is challenging. This study compares the diagnostic accuracy of micro-ultrasound (mUS) with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for such cases. METHODS A retrospective cohort study was performed, targeting men with previous negative biopsies and using mUS and mpMRI to detect prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). RESULTS In our cohort of 1397 men, 304 had a history of negative biopsies. mUS was more sensitive than mpMRI, with better predictive value for negative results. Importantly, mUS was significantly associated with csPCa detection (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 6.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.15-37.8; p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS mUS may be preferable for diagnosing prostate cancer in previously biopsy-negative patients. However, the retrospective design of this study at a single institution suggests that further research across multiple centers is warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Edoardo Beatrici
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy
| | - Nicola Frego
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Chiarelli
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy
| | - Federica Sordelli
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy
| | - Stefano Mancon
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy
| | - Cesare Saitta
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy
| | - Fabio De Carne
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Garofano
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy
| | - Paola Arena
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy
| | - Pier Paolo Avolio
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy
| | - Andrea Gobbo
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy
| | - Alessandro Uleri
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy
| | - Roberto Contieri
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy
| | - Marco Paciotti
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy
| | - Massimo Lazzeri
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy
| | - Rodolfo Hurle
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy
| | - Paolo Casale
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy
| | - Nicolò Maria Buffi
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy
| | - Giovanni Lughezzani
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Chung JH, Song W, Kang M, Sung HH, Jeon HG, Jeong BC, Seo SI, Jeon SS, Lee HM, Park BK. Sextant Systematic Biopsy Versus Extended 12-Core Systematic Biopsy in Combined Biopsy for Prostate Cancer. J Korean Med Sci 2024; 39:e63. [PMID: 38412610 PMCID: PMC10896698 DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e63] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/25/2023] [Accepted: 12/21/2023] [Indexed: 02/29/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study assessed the comparative effectiveness of sextant and extended 12-core systematic biopsy within combined biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer. METHODS Patients who underwent combined biopsy targeting lesions with a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score of 3-5 were assessed. Two specialists performed all combined cognitive biopsies. Both specialists performed target biopsies with five or more cores. One performed sextant systematic biopsies, and the other performed extended 12-core systematic biopsies. A total of 550 patients were analyzed. RESULTS Cases requiring systematic biopsy in combined biopsy exhibited a significant association with age ≥ 65 years (odds ratio [OR], 2.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-4.32; P = 0.008), PI-RADS score (OR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.25-4.32; P = 0.008), and the number of systematic biopsy cores (OR, 3.69; 95% CI, 2.11-6.44; P < 0.001). In patients with an index lesion of PI-RADS 4, an extended 12-core systematic biopsy was required (target-negative/systematic-positive or a greater Gleason score in the systematic biopsy than in the targeted biopsy) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION During combined biopsy for prostate cancer in patients with PI-RADS 3 or 5, sextant systematic biopsy should be recommended over extended 12-core systematic biopsy when an effective targeted biopsy is performed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jae Hoon Chung
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Wan Song
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Minyong Kang
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hyun Hwan Sung
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hwang Gyun Jeon
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Byong Chang Jeong
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Seong Il Seo
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Seong Soo Jeon
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Hyun Moo Lee
- Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Byung Kwan Park
- Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Avolio PP, Fasulo V, Sanchez-Salas R, Maffei D, Frego N, Lazzeri M, Paciotti M, Saita A, Hurle R, Guazzoni G, Casale P, Buffi NM, Lughezzani G. Diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI- and microultrasound-targeted biopsy in biopsy-naïve patients with a PI-RADS 5 lesion: a single-institutional study. World J Urol 2023; 41:2335-2342. [PMID: 37418017 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-023-04480-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2023] [Accepted: 06/02/2023] [Indexed: 07/08/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)- and microultrasound (microUS)-guided targeted biopsy (TBx) in detecting prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant (cs) PCa among men with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS 5) lesions and to compare this combined TBx (CTBx) strategy with CTBx plus systemic biopsy (SBx). METHODS One hundred and thirty-six biopsy-naïve patients with PI-RADS 5 lesion at multiparametric MRI undergoing CTBx plus SBx were retrospectively evaluated. Analysis of diagnostic performance of microUS-TBx, MRI-TBx, CTBx, SBx and combined CTBx plus SBx was performed. Cost (downgrade, upgrade and biopsy core) to effectiveness (detection rate) was compared. RESULTS CTBx achieved a comparable detection rate to CTBx plus SBx in diagnosis of PCa and csPCa (PCa: 78.7% [107/136] vs 79.4% [108/136]; csPCa: 67.6% [92/136] vs 67.6% [92/136]; p > 0.05) and outperformed SBx (PCa: 58.8% [80/136]; csPCa: 47.8% [65/136]; p < 0.001). Using CTB would have avoided 41.1% (56/136) unnecessary SBx, without missing any csPCa. The rate of any upgrading or csPCa upgrading was significantly higher by SBx than by CTBx [33/65 (50.8%) vs 17/65 (26.1%) and 20/65 (30.8%) vs 4/65 (6.15%), respectively, p < 0.05]. Considering csPCa detection rate, microUS showed high sensitivity and positive predictive value (94.6%, 87.9%, respectively), with lower specificity and negative predictive value (25.0% and 44.4%, respectively). At multivariable logistic regression models, positive microUS was identified as an independent predictor of csPCa (p = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS A combined microUS/MRI-TBx approach could be the ideal imaging tool for characterizing primary disease in PI-RADS five patients, allowing SBx to be avoided.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pier Paolo Avolio
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, 20090, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - Vittorio Fasulo
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, 20090, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Davide Maffei
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, 20090, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - Nicola Frego
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, 20090, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - Massimo Lazzeri
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - Marco Paciotti
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, 20090, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - Alberto Saita
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - Rodolfo Hurle
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - Giorgio Guazzoni
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, 20090, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - Paolo Casale
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - Nicolò Maria Buffi
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, 20090, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
| | - Giovanni Lughezzani
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, 20090, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy.
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Via Manzoni 56, 20089, Rozzano, Milan, Italy.
- , Via Rita Levi Montalcini, 4, 20090, Rozzano, MI, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Lombardo R, Tema G, Nacchia A, Mancini E, Franco S, Zammitti F, Franco A, Cash H, Gravina C, Guidotti A, Gallo G, Ghezzo N, Cicione A, Tubaro A, Autorino R, De Nunzio C. Role of Perilesional Sampling of Patients Undergoing Fusion Prostate Biopsies. Life (Basel) 2023; 13:1719. [PMID: 37629576 PMCID: PMC10455324 DOI: 10.3390/life13081719] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2023] [Revised: 08/04/2023] [Accepted: 08/09/2023] [Indexed: 08/27/2023] Open
Abstract
Recently, researchers have proposed perilesional sampling during prostate biopsies to avoid systematic biopsies of patients at risk of prostate cancer. The aim of our study is to evaluate the role of perilesional sampling to avoid systematic biopsies of patients undergoing fusion biopsies. A prospective cohort of patients undergoing transrectal MRI transrectal fusion biopsies were consecutively enrolled. All the patients underwent systematic biopsies (SB), targeted biopsies (TB) and perilesional biopsies within 10 mm from the lesion (PB). The detection rates of different strategies were determined. A total of 262 patients were enrolled. The median age of those enrolled was 70 years. The mean BMI was 27 kg/m2, and the mean and prostate volume was 52 mL. A PIRADS score ≥ 4 was recorded in 163/262 (40%) patients. Overall, the detection rates of cancer were 43.5% (114/262) and 35% (92/262) for csPCa. The use of the target + peri-target strategy resulted in a detection of 32.8% (86/262) of cancer cases and of 29% (76/262) of csPCa cases (Grade Group > 2). Using the target plus peri-target approach resulted in us missing 18/262 (7%) of the csPCa cases, avoiding the diagnosis of 8/262 (3%) of nsPCa cases. A biopsy strategy including lesional and perilesional sampling could avoid unnecessary prostate biopsies. However, the risk of missing significant cancers is present. Future studies should assess the cost-benefit relationship of different strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Riccardo Lombardo
- Ospedale Sant’Andrea, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy; (R.L.); (G.T.); (A.N.); (E.M.); (S.F.); (F.Z.); (A.F.); (C.G.); (A.G.); (G.G.); (N.G.); (A.C.); (A.T.)
| | - Giorgia Tema
- Ospedale Sant’Andrea, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy; (R.L.); (G.T.); (A.N.); (E.M.); (S.F.); (F.Z.); (A.F.); (C.G.); (A.G.); (G.G.); (N.G.); (A.C.); (A.T.)
| | - Antonio Nacchia
- Ospedale Sant’Andrea, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy; (R.L.); (G.T.); (A.N.); (E.M.); (S.F.); (F.Z.); (A.F.); (C.G.); (A.G.); (G.G.); (N.G.); (A.C.); (A.T.)
| | - Elisa Mancini
- Ospedale Sant’Andrea, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy; (R.L.); (G.T.); (A.N.); (E.M.); (S.F.); (F.Z.); (A.F.); (C.G.); (A.G.); (G.G.); (N.G.); (A.C.); (A.T.)
| | - Sara Franco
- Ospedale Sant’Andrea, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy; (R.L.); (G.T.); (A.N.); (E.M.); (S.F.); (F.Z.); (A.F.); (C.G.); (A.G.); (G.G.); (N.G.); (A.C.); (A.T.)
| | - Filippo Zammitti
- Ospedale Sant’Andrea, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy; (R.L.); (G.T.); (A.N.); (E.M.); (S.F.); (F.Z.); (A.F.); (C.G.); (A.G.); (G.G.); (N.G.); (A.C.); (A.T.)
| | - Antonio Franco
- Ospedale Sant’Andrea, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy; (R.L.); (G.T.); (A.N.); (E.M.); (S.F.); (F.Z.); (A.F.); (C.G.); (A.G.); (G.G.); (N.G.); (A.C.); (A.T.)
| | - Hannes Cash
- Department of Urology, University of Magdeburg, 39106 Magdeburg, Germany;
| | - Carmen Gravina
- Ospedale Sant’Andrea, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy; (R.L.); (G.T.); (A.N.); (E.M.); (S.F.); (F.Z.); (A.F.); (C.G.); (A.G.); (G.G.); (N.G.); (A.C.); (A.T.)
| | - Alessio Guidotti
- Ospedale Sant’Andrea, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy; (R.L.); (G.T.); (A.N.); (E.M.); (S.F.); (F.Z.); (A.F.); (C.G.); (A.G.); (G.G.); (N.G.); (A.C.); (A.T.)
| | - Giacomo Gallo
- Ospedale Sant’Andrea, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy; (R.L.); (G.T.); (A.N.); (E.M.); (S.F.); (F.Z.); (A.F.); (C.G.); (A.G.); (G.G.); (N.G.); (A.C.); (A.T.)
| | - Nicola Ghezzo
- Ospedale Sant’Andrea, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy; (R.L.); (G.T.); (A.N.); (E.M.); (S.F.); (F.Z.); (A.F.); (C.G.); (A.G.); (G.G.); (N.G.); (A.C.); (A.T.)
| | - Antonio Cicione
- Ospedale Sant’Andrea, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy; (R.L.); (G.T.); (A.N.); (E.M.); (S.F.); (F.Z.); (A.F.); (C.G.); (A.G.); (G.G.); (N.G.); (A.C.); (A.T.)
| | - Andrea Tubaro
- Ospedale Sant’Andrea, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy; (R.L.); (G.T.); (A.N.); (E.M.); (S.F.); (F.Z.); (A.F.); (C.G.); (A.G.); (G.G.); (N.G.); (A.C.); (A.T.)
| | - Riccardo Autorino
- Department of Urology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA;
| | - Cosimo De Nunzio
- Ospedale Sant’Andrea, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy; (R.L.); (G.T.); (A.N.); (E.M.); (S.F.); (F.Z.); (A.F.); (C.G.); (A.G.); (G.G.); (N.G.); (A.C.); (A.T.)
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Cao H, Xu W, Xu Y, Rong X, Xiao X, Feng H, Wang X, Wang L, Qi T, Zhang L. Value of synthetic MRI quantitative parameters in preprocedural evaluation for TRUS/MRI fusion-guided biopsy of the prostate. Prostate 2023. [PMID: 37157155 DOI: 10.1002/pros.24550] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/21/2022] [Revised: 03/17/2023] [Accepted: 04/24/2023] [Indexed: 05/10/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) fusion-guided biopsy has a high clinical application value. However, this technique has some limitations, which limit its use in routine clinical practice. Therefore, the selection of suitable proatate lesions for this technique is worthy of our attention. Synthetic MRI (SyMRI) is capable of quantifying multiple relaxation parameters, which might have potential value in preprocedural evaluation for TRUS/MRI fusion-guided biopsy of the prostate. The aim of our study is to examine the value of SyMRI quantitative parameters in preprocedural evaluation for TRUS/MRI fusion-guided biopsy of the prostate. METHODS We prospectively selected 148 lesions in 137 patients who underwent prostate biopsy in our hospital. Next, 2-4 needles of TRUS/MRI fusion-guided biopsy combined with 10 needles of system biopsy (SB) were used as the protocol for prostate biopsy. Before biopsy, the MAGiC sequences of the MRI images of the enrolled patients underwent post-processing, and the longitudinal relaxation time (T1), transverse relaxation time (T2), and proton density (PD) were extracted. The biopsy pathology results were used as a gold standard to compare the differences in SyMRI quantitative parameters between benign and malignant prostate lesions in the peripheral and transitional zones. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted to confirm the optimal SyMRI quantitative parameter for prostate lesion benignancy/malignancy performance, and the cutoff values of these parameters were used for grouping the lesions. The single-needle biopsy prostate cancer (PCa)-positivity rates (number of positive biopsy needles/total biopsy needles) and PCa overall detection rates by TRUS/MRI fusion-guided biopsy and SB were compared in different subgroups. RESULTS The T1 and T2 values can determine the benignancy/malignancy of prostate transition lesions(p < 0.01), and the T2 value has a greater diagnostic performance (p = 0.0376). The T2 value can determine the benignancy/malignancy of prostate peripheral lesions. The optimal diagnostic cutoff values for T2 were 77 and 81 ms, respectively. The single-needle PCa positivity rate of TRUS/MRI fusion-guided biopsy was higher than SB for any prostate lesions in different subgroups (p < 0.01). However, only in the subgroup of transition zone lesions with T2 ≤ 77 ms, the PCa overall detection rate of TRUS/MRI fusion-guided biopsy was significantly higher than that of SB (p = 0.031). CONCLUSION SyMRI-T2 value can provide a theoretical basis for the selection of suitable lesions for TRUS/MRI fusion-guided biopsy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Haiyan Cao
- Department of Ultrasound, Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, Medical Imaging Center, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China
- Department of Ultrasound, Yancheng First Hospital, Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical school (The First people's Hospital of Yancheng), Yancheng, China
| | - Wenjuan Xu
- Department of Radiology, Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, Medical Imaging Center, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China
| | - Yan Xu
- Department of Ultrasound, Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, Medical Imaging Center, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China
| | - Xin Rong
- Department of Ultrasound, Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, Medical Imaging Center, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China
| | - Xiao Xiao
- Department of Ultrasound, Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, Medical Imaging Center, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China
| | - Hao Feng
- Department of Ultrasound, Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, Medical Imaging Center, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China
| | - Xiaoxiang Wang
- Department of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China
| | - Lei Wang
- Department of Pathology, Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China
| | - Tingyue Qi
- Department of Ultrasound, Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, Medical Imaging Center, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China
| | - Li Zhang
- Department of Interventional Radiology, Affiliated Hospital of Yangzhou University, Medical Imaging Center, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Porpiglia F, Checcucci E, DE Cillis S, Piramide F, Amparore D, Piana A, Volpi G, Granato S, Zamengo D, Stura I, Alladio E, Migliaretti G, DE Luca S, Bollito E, Gned D, DI Dio M, Autorino R, Manfredi M, Fiori C. A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing target prostate biopsy alone approach vs. target plus standard in naïve patients with positive mpMRI. Minerva Urol Nephrol 2023; 75:31-41. [PMID: 36626117 DOI: 10.23736/s2724-6051.22.05189-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In the era of mpMRI guided target fusion biopsy (FB), the role of concomitant standard biopsy (SB) in naïve patients still remains under scrutiny. The aim of this study was to compare the detection rate (DR) of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in biopsy naïve patients with positive mpMRI who underwent FB alone (Arm A) vs FB+SB (Arm B). Secondary objectives were to compare the incidence of complications, the overall PCa DR and the biopsy results with final pathological findings after robotic prostatectomy (RARP). METHODS This is a single center prospective non-inferiority parallel two arms (1:1) randomized control trial (ISRCTN registry number ISRCTN60263108) which took place at San Luigi Gonzaga University Hospital, Orbassano (Turin, Italy) from 4/2019 to 10/2021. Eligible participants were all adults aged<75 years old, biopsy naïve, with serum PSA<15 ng/mL and positive mpMRI (Pi-Rads V.2>3). FB was performed under ultrasound guidance using the BioJet fusion system; four to six target samples were obtained for each index lesion. SB was performed in accordance with the protocol by Rodríguez-Covarrubias. RARP with total anatomical reconstruction was carried out when indicated. DR of PCa and csPCA (Gleason Score >7) were evaluated. Post-biopsy complications according to Clavien-Dindo were recorded. Concordance between biopsy and RARP pathological findings was evaluated. Fisher's Exact test and Mann-Whitney test were applied; furthermore, Logistic Principal Component Analysis (LogPCA) and Pearson's correlation method, in terms of correlation funnel plots, were performed to explore data in a multivariate way. RESULTS 201 and 193 patients were enrolled in Arm A and B, respectively. csPCa DR was 60.2% vs. 60.6% in Arm A and B respectively (Δ 0.4%; P=0.93); whilst overall PCa DR was 63.7% vs. 71.0% (Δ 7.3%; P=0.12). However, in a target only setting, the addition of SB homolaterally to the index lesion reaching a non-inferior performance compared to the combined sampling (Δ PCa DR 3%). Although the differences of 7.3% in PCa DR, during RARP were registered similar nerve sparing rate (P=0.89), positive surgical margins (P=0.67) and rate of significant upgrading (P=0.12). LogPCA model showed no distinction between the two cohorts; and Pearson's correlation values turned to be between -0.5 and +0.5. In Arm B, the lesion diameter <10 mm is the only predictive variable of positive SB only for PCa (P=0.04), with an additional value +3% for PCa DR. CONCLUSIONS In biopsy naïve patients, FB alone is not inferior to FB+SB in detecting csPCa (Δ csPCa DR 0.4%). Δ 7.3% in overall PCa DR was registered between the two Arms, however the addition of further standard samples homolaterally to mp-MRI index lesion improved the overall PCa DR of FB only sampling (Δ PCa DR 3%). The omission of SB did not influence the post-surgical outcomes in terms of NS approach, PSMr and upgrading/downgrading.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesco Porpiglia
- Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy
| | - Enrico Checcucci
- Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy - .,Department of Surgery, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO-IRCCS, Candiolo, Turin, Italy
| | - Sabrina DE Cillis
- Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy
| | - Federico Piramide
- Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy
| | - Daniele Amparore
- Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy
| | - Alberto Piana
- Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy
| | - Gabriele Volpi
- Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy
| | - Stefano Granato
- Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy
| | - Davide Zamengo
- Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy
| | - Ilaria Stura
- Department of Public Health and Pediatric Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | | | | | - Stefano DE Luca
- Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy
| | - Enrico Bollito
- Department of Pathology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy
| | - Dario Gned
- Department of Radiology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, Orbassano, Turin, Italy
| | - Michele DI Dio
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, SS Annunziata Hospital, Cosenza, Italy
| | | | - Matteo Manfredi
- Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy
| | - Cristian Fiori
- Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Hoeh B, Hohenhorst JL, Wenzel M, Humke C, Preisser F, Wittler C, Brand M, Köllermann J, Steuber T, Graefen M, Tilki D, Karakiewicz PI, Becker A, Kluth LA, Chun FKH, Mandel P. Full functional-length urethral sphincter- and neurovascular bundle preservation improves long-term continence rates after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Robot Surg 2023; 17:177-184. [PMID: 35459985 PMCID: PMC9939484 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-022-01408-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/06/2021] [Accepted: 03/22/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
The objective of the study was to test the impact of implementing standard full functional-length urethral sphincter (FFLU) and neurovascular bundle preservation (NVBP) with intraoperative frozen section technique (IFT) on long-term urinary continence in patients undergoing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). We relied on an institutional tertiary-care database to identify patients who underwent RARP between 01/2014 and 09/2019. Until 10/2017, FFLU was not performed and decision for NVBP was taken without IFT. From 11/2017, FFLU and IFT-guided NVBP was routinely performed in all patients undergoing RARP. Long-term continence (≥ 12 months) was defined as the usage of no or one safety- pad. Uni- and multivariable logistic regression models tested the correlation between surgical approach (standard vs FFLU + NVBP) and long-term continence. Covariates consisted of age, body mass index, prostate volume and extraprostatic extension of tumor. The study cohort consisted of 142 patients, with equally sized groups for standard vs FFLU + NVBP RARP (68 vs 74 patients). Routine FFLU + NVBP implementation resulted in a long-term continence rate of 91%, compared to 63% in standard RARP (p < 0.001). Following FFLU + NVBP RARP, 5% needed 1-2, 4% 3-5 pads/24 h and no patient (0%) suffered severe long-term incontinence (> 5 pads/24 h). No significant differences in patient or tumor characteristics were recorded between both groups. In multivariable logistic regression models, FFLU + NVBP was a robust predictor for continence (Odds ratio [OR]: 7.62; 95% CI 2.51-27.36; p < 0.001). Implementation of FFLU and NVBP in patients undergoing RARP results in improved long-term continence rates of 91%.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benedikt Hoeh
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada.
| | - Jan L Hohenhorst
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Mike Wenzel
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Clara Humke
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Felix Preisser
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Clarissa Wittler
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Marie Brand
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Jens Köllermann
- Dr. Senckenberg Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Thomas Steuber
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Markus Graefen
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
- Department of Urology, Koc University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Pierre I Karakiewicz
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Andreas Becker
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Luis A Kluth
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Felix K H Chun
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Philipp Mandel
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Lan H, Zhou Y, Lin G, Zhao H, Wu G. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guided Prostate Biopsy in Patients with ≥ One Negative Systematic Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancer Invest 2022; 40:789-798. [PMID: 36062985 DOI: 10.1080/07357907.2022.2121965] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2021] [Revised: 12/29/2021] [Accepted: 09/03/2022] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
The present study aimed to compare prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) detection sensitivity between magnetic resonance imaging guided-biopsy (MRI-GB) and transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-GB) in patients with ≥ 1 negative TRUS-GB, and to explore the additive value of TRUS-GB to MRI-GB. The meta-analysis of 18 studies demonstrated that MRI-GB had a similar sensitivity for PCa detection but a higher sensitivity for csPCa than TRUS-GB. In conclusion, there was limited value in combining TRUS-GB with MRI-GB compared with MRI-GB alone for csPCa detection in patients with one or more negative TRUS-GBs that were suspicious of having PCa.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hailong Lan
- Department of Radiology, Wuchuan People's Hospital, Wuchuan, China
| | - Yanling Zhou
- Department of Radiology, Xiaolan Hospital Affiliated to Southern Medical University, Zhongshan, China
| | - Guisen Lin
- Department of Radiology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, China
| | - Hua Zhao
- Department of Radiology, Wuchuan People's Hospital, Wuchuan, China
| | - Guantu Wu
- Department of Urology, Wuchuan People's Hospital, Wuchuan, China
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
A clinical available decision support scheme for optimizing prostate biopsy based on mpMRI. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2022; 25:727-734. [PMID: 35067674 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-021-00489-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/13/2021] [Revised: 12/11/2021] [Accepted: 12/16/2021] [Indexed: 01/14/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Combined MRI/Ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy (TBx) and systematic biopsy (SBx) results in better prostate cancer (PCa) detection relative to either TBx or SBx alone, while at the cost of higher number of biopsy cores and greater detection of clinically insignificant PCa. We therefore developed and evaluated a simple decision support scheme for optimizing prostate biopsy based on multiparametric (mp) MRI assessment. METHODS Total 229 patients with suspicion of PCa underwent mpMRI before combined TBx/SBx were retrospectively included. Impacts of MRI characteristics such as Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score, lesion size, zonal origination, and location on biopsy performance were evaluated. A clinically available decision support scheme relying on mpMRI assessment was subsequently developed as a triage test to optimize prostate biopsy process. Cost (downgrade, upgrade, and biopsy core)-to-Effectiveness (detection rate) was systemically compared. RESULTS TBx achieved comparable detection rate to combined TBx/SBx in diagnosis of PCa and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) (PCa, 59% [135/229] vs 60.7% [139/229]; csPCa, 45.9% [105/229] vs 47.2% [108/229]; p-values > 0.05) and outperformed SBx (PCa, 42.4% [97/229]; csPCa, 28.4% [65/229]; p-values < 0.001). Specially, in personalized decision support scheme, TBx accurately detected all PCa (72.5% [74/102]) in PI-RADS 5 and larger (≥1 cm) PI-RADS 3-4 observations, adding SBx to TBx only resulted in 1.4% (1/74) upgrading csPCa. For smaller (<1 cm) PI-RADS 3-4 lesions, combined TBx/SBx resulted in relatively higher detection rate (51.2% [65/127] vs 48.0% [61/127]) and lower upgrading rate (30.6% [15/49] vs 36.7% [18/49]) than TBx. CONCLUSIONS The benefit of SBx added to TBx was largely restricted to smaller PI-RADS score 3-4 lesions. Using our personalized strategy of solo TBx for PI-RADS 5 and larger (≥1 cm) PI-RADS score 3-4 lesions would avoid excess SBx in 44.5% (102/229) of all biopsy-naïve patients without compromising detection rate.
Collapse
|
11
|
Haider MA, Brown J, Chin JL, Perlis N, Schieda N, Loblaw A. Evidence-based guideline recommendations on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer: A Cancer Care Ontario updated clinical practice guideline. Can Urol Assoc J 2022; 16:16-23. [PMID: 35133265 PMCID: PMC8932419 DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.7425] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION This clinical practice guideline is based on a systematic review to assess the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) for biopsy-naive men and men with a prior negative transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy (TRUS-SB) at elevated risk. METHODS The methods of the clinical practice guideline included searches to September of 2020 of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Internal and external reviews were conducted. RESULTS The recommendations are:Recommendation 1: For biopsy-naive patients at elevated risk of csPCa, mpMRI is recommended prior to biopsy in patients who are candidates for curative management with suspected clinically localized prostate cancer.- If the mpMRI is positive, mpMRI-targeted biopsy (TB) and TRUS-SB should be performed together to maximize detection of csPCa.- If the mpMRI is negative, consider forgoing any biopsy after discussion of the risks and benefits with the patient as part of shared decision-making and ongoing followup.Recommendation 2: In patients who had a prior negative TRUS-SB and demonstrate a high risk of having csPCa in whom curative management is being considered:- mpMRI should be performed.- If the mpMRI is positive, targeted biopsy should be performed. Concomitant TRUS-SB can be considered depending on the patient's risk profile and time since prior TRUS-SB biopsy.- If the mpMRI is negative, consider forgoing a TRUS-SB only after discussion of the risks and benefits with the patient as part of shared decision-making and ongoing followup.Recommendation 3: mpMRI should be performed and interpreted in compliance with the current Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS) guidelines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Masoom A. Haider
- Sinai Health System and University of Toronto, Joint Department of Medical Imaging, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Judy Brown
- Program in Evidence-based Care, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), McMaster University, Hamilton ON, Canada
| | - Jospeh L.K. Chin
- London Health Sciences Centre, Victoria Hospital, London, ON, Canada
| | - Nauthan Perlis
- Cancer Clinical Research Unit, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Nicola Schieda
- Department of Radiology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Andrew Loblaw
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Diagnostic performance of fusion (US/MRI guided) prostate biopsy: propensity score matched comparison of elastic versus rigid fusion system. World J Urol 2022; 40:991-996. [PMID: 35037076 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-021-03921-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/28/2021] [Accepted: 12/28/2021] [Indexed: 10/19/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Many software for US/MRI guided fusion prostate biopsy (FPB), have been developed in the last years. However, there are few data comparing diagnostic accuracy of different fusion systems. We assessed diagnostic performance of elastic (EF) versus rigid fusion (RF) PB in a propensity score matched (PSM) analysis. METHODS A total of 314 FPB were prospectively collected from two different centers. All patients were biopsy naïve and all mpMRI reported a single suspicious area. Overall, 211 PB were performed using a RF system and 103 using an EF software. The two groups were compared for the main clinical features. A 1:1 PSM analysis was employed to reduce covariate imbalance to < 10%. Detection rate (DR) for any prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant (cs) PCa were compared and stratified for PI-RADS Score. A per target univariable and multivariable regression analyses were applied to identity predictors of anyPCa and csPCa. RESULTS After applying the PSM, two cohorts of 83 cases were selected. DR of any PCa cancer and csPCa were comparable between the two cohorts (all p > 0.077) as well as DR of csPCa for every PIRADS score. At univariable regression analysis lesion size, PI-RADS Score, PSA Density and EF system were predictors of any PCa (all p < 0.001); however, at multivariable analysis only PI-RADS Score was independent predictor of any PCa (p = 0.027). At multivariable analysis only PI-RADS score was independent predictor of csPCa. CONCLUSIONS Fusion PB guarantees high diagnostic accuracy for csPCa, regardless of the fusion technology. Prospective randomized study is needed to confirm these data.
Collapse
|
13
|
Demirtaş T, Gur A, Golbasi A, Sönmez G, Tombul ŞT, Demirtaş A. A Prospective Study and Single-Center Experience: Effectivity of Fusion Prostate Biopsy in Biopsy-Naïve Patients. Cureus 2021; 13:e19002. [PMID: 34824923 PMCID: PMC8610438 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.19002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/24/2021] [Indexed: 12/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective Fusion prostate biopsy (FPB) has become a popular technique in biopsy-naïve patients, though not accepted as a standard approach (yet). In this study, we aimed to present the clinical outcomes of biopsy-naïve patients who underwent FPB. Material and methods The study included 400 biopsy-naïve patients aged 45-75 years who had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 2-10 ng/ml and were detected with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) ≥3 lesion on multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-guided FPB. A combined biopsy (CB) was performed in each patient, in which 2-4 cores were obtained for suspicious lesions by targeted biopsy (TB) and then 12-core standard prostate biopsy (SPB) was conducted in the same session. Cancer detection rates, clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection rates, histological upgrading rates, and false negative rates were determined. Results The 400 patients had a mean age of 62.01±7.00 years and a mean PSA value of 6.84±1.87 ng/ml. Overall PCa detection rate was 50% (200/400). The csPCa detection rates for TB, SPB, and CB were 25.0%, 31.8%, and 44.0%, respectively (p<0.001). In PIRADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions, CB had a csPCa detection rate of 29.2%, 54%, and 64.8%, respectively (p<0.001). The ratio of false negativity was significantly higher for TB compared to SPB (43.2% vs. 27.8%, p=0.003), whereas no significant difference was found between these two techniques with regard to upgrading rates although TB had a higher rate (19.6% vs. 13.7%, p=0.144). Conclusion FPB, a combined approach involving TB and SPB, was revealed as the most successful technique in biopsy-naïve patients with PSA<10 ng/ml due to its high cancer detection rates and low false negative rates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Türev Demirtaş
- History of Medicine and Ethics, Erciyes University, Kayseri, TUR
| | - Ahmet Gur
- Urology, Kayseri City Hospital, Kayseri, TUR
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Lodeta B, Trkulja V, Kolroser-Sarmiento G, Jozipovic D, Salmhofer A, Augustin H. Systematic biopsy should not be omitted in the era of combined magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsies of the prostate. Int Urol Nephrol 2021; 53:2251-2259. [PMID: 34505227 DOI: 10.1007/s11255-021-02989-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/24/2021] [Accepted: 08/15/2021] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate prostate cancer detection rates with classical trans-rectal ultrasound-guided systematic 10-core biopsies (SB), targeted biopsies (TB) guided by magnetic resonance (MR)/US fusion imaging and their combination in biopsy-naïve and patients with previously negative prostate biopsies. We compared pathology results after radical prostatectomy with biopsy findings. METHODS Consecutive patients with prostate imaging-reporting and data system lesions grade ≥ 3 submitted to MRI/US-guided TB and subsequent standard 10-core SB between December 2015 and June 2019 were analyzed. RESULTS Detection rate (TB- or SB-positive) in 563 included patients (192 naïve, 371 with previous biopsies) was 56.7% (67.7% for the first, 50.9% for repeated biopsies). With TB (disregarding SB), the rates were 41.4%, 52.1% and 35.8%, respectively. With SB (disregarding TB), the rates were 49.1%, 63.0% and 41.8%, respectively. Eventually, 118 patients underwent surgery and clinically significant cancer was found in 111 (94.1%) specimens. Of those, 23 (20.7%) would have been missed had we relied upon a negative TB and 14 (12.6%) would have been missed had we relied upon a negative SB, disregarding a positive finding on the alternative biopsy template. CONCLUSION SB should not be omitted since TB and SB combination have higher detection rate of clinically relevant prostate cancer than either procedure alone.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Branimir Lodeta
- Department of Urology and Andrology, Klinikum Klagenfurt, Feschnigstrasse 11, 9020, Klagenfurt, Austria.
| | - Vladimir Trkulja
- Department of Pharmacology, Zagreb University School of Medicine, Zagreb, Croatia
| | - Georg Kolroser-Sarmiento
- Department of Urology and Andrology, Klinikum Klagenfurt, Feschnigstrasse 11, 9020, Klagenfurt, Austria
| | - Danijel Jozipovic
- Department of Urology and Andrology, Klinikum Klagenfurt, Feschnigstrasse 11, 9020, Klagenfurt, Austria
| | - Aigul Salmhofer
- Department of Urology and Andrology, Klinikum Klagenfurt, Feschnigstrasse 11, 9020, Klagenfurt, Austria
| | - Herbert Augustin
- Department of Urology and Andrology, Klinikum Klagenfurt, Feschnigstrasse 11, 9020, Klagenfurt, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Wenzel M, Würnschimmel C, Chierigo F, Tian Z, Shariat SF, Terrone C, Saad F, Tilki D, Graefen M, Roos FC, A Kluth L, Mandel P, Chun FKH, Karakiewicz PI. Assessment of the optimal number of positive biopsy cores to discriminate between cancer-specific mortality in high-risk versus very high-risk prostate cancer patients. Prostate 2021; 81:1055-1063. [PMID: 34312910 DOI: 10.1002/pros.24202] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/28/2021] [Revised: 06/10/2021] [Accepted: 07/12/2021] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Number of positive prostate biopsy cores represents a key determinant between high versus very high-risk prostate cancer (PCa). We performed a critical appraisal of the association between the number of positive prostate biopsy cores and CSM in high versus very high-risk PCa. METHODS Within Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010-2016), 13,836 high versus 20,359 very high-risk PCa patients were identified. Discrimination according to 11 different positive prostate biopsy core cut-offs (≥2-≥12) were tested in Kaplan-Meier, cumulative incidence, and multivariable Cox and competing risks regression models. RESULTS Among 11 tested positive prostate biopsy core cut-offs, more than or equal to 8 (high-risk vs. very high-risk: n = 18,986 vs. n = 15,209, median prostate-specific antigen [PSA]: 10.6 vs. 16.8 ng/ml, <.001) yielded optimal discrimination and was closely followed by the established more than or equal to 5 cut-off (high-risk vs. very high-risk: n = 13,836 vs. n = 20,359, median PSA: 16.5 vs. 11.1 ng/ml, p < .001). Stratification according to more than or equal to 8 positive prostate biopsy cores resulted in CSM rates of 4.1 versus 14.2% (delta: 10.1%, multivariable hazard ratio: 2.2, p < .001) and stratification according to more than or equal to 5 positive prostate biopsy cores with CSM rates of 3.7 versus 11.9% (delta: 8.2%, multivariable hazard ratio: 2.0, p < .001) in respectively high versus very high-risk PCa. CONCLUSIONS The more than or equal to 8 positive prostate biopsy cores cutoff yielded optimal results. It was very closely followed by more than or equal to 5 positive prostate biopsy cores. In consequence, virtually the same endorsement may be made for either cutoff. However, more than or equal to 5 positive prostate biopsy cores cutoff, based on its existing wide implementation, might represent the optimal choice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mike Wenzel
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Christoph Würnschimmel
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Francesco Chierigo
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Department of Urology, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Zhe Tian
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Shahrokh F Shariat
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Departments of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA
- Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, Texas, USA
- Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prag, Czech Republic
- Department of Urology, Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I. M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia
- Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, Jordan University Hospital, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
| | - Carlo Terrone
- Department of Urology, Policlinico San Martino Hospital, University of Genova, Genova, Italy
| | - Fred Saad
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Markus Graefen
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Frederik C Roos
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Luis A Kluth
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Philipp Mandel
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Felix K H Chun
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Pierre I Karakiewicz
- Division of Urology, Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Würnschimmel C, Kachanov M, Wenzel M, Mandel P, Karakiewicz PI, Maurer T, Steuber T, Tilki D, Graefen M, Budäus L. Twenty-year trends in prostate cancer stage and grade migration in a large contemporary german radical prostatectomy cohort. Prostate 2021; 81:849-856. [PMID: 34110033 DOI: 10.1002/pros.24181] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/25/2021] [Revised: 05/08/2021] [Accepted: 06/01/2021] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A trend towards inverse stage migration in prostate cancer (PCa) was reported. However, previous analyses did not take into account potential differences in sampling strategies (number of biopsy cores), which might have confounded these reports. MATERIAL AND METHODS Within our single-institutional database we identified PCa patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) between 2000 and 2020 (n = 21,646). We calculated the estimated annual percentage change (EAPC) for D'Amico risk groups, biopsy Gleason Grade Group (GGG), PSA and cT stage as well as postoperative RP GGG and pT stage relying on log linear regression methodology. Subsequently, we repeated the analyses after adjustment for number of cores obtained at biopsy. RESULTS Absolute rates of D'Amico low risk decreased (-30.1%), while intermediate and high risk increased (+21.2% and +9.0%, respectively). Rates of GGG I decreased (-50.0%), while GGG II-V increased, with the largest increase in GGG II (+22.5%). This trend, albeit less pronounced, was also recorded after adjusted EAPC analyses (p < .05). Specifically, EAPC values for D'Amico low vs intermediate vs high risk were -1.07%, +0.37%, +0.45%, respectively, and EAPC values for GGG ranged between -0.71% (GGG I) and +0.80% (GGG IV). Finally, an increase in ≥cT2 (EAPC: +3.16%) was displayed (all p < .001). These trends were confirmed in EAPC calculations in RP GGG and pT stages (p < .001). CONCLUSION Our findings confirm the trend towards less frequent treatment of low risk PCa and more frequent treatment of high risk PCa, also after adjustment for number of biopsy cores.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christoph Würnschimmel
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Mykyta Kachanov
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Mike Wenzel
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Philipp Mandel
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Pierre I Karakiewicz
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Tobias Maurer
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Thomas Steuber
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Markus Graefen
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Lars Budäus
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Wenzel M, Würnschimmel C, Ruvolo CC, Nocera L, Tian Z, Saad F, Briganti A, Tilki D, Graefen M, Kluth LA, Mandel P, Chun FKH, Karakiewicz PI. Increasing rates of NCCN high and very high-risk prostate cancer versus number of prostate biopsy cores. Prostate 2021; 81:874-881. [PMID: 34184780 DOI: 10.1002/pros.24184] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/19/2021] [Revised: 05/27/2021] [Accepted: 06/07/2021] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Recently, an increase in the rates of high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) was reported. We tested whether the rates of and low, intermediate, high and very high-risk PCa changed over time. We also tested whether the number of prostate biopsy cores contributed to changes rates over time. METHODS Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database (2010-2015), annual rates of low, intermediate, high-risk according to traditional National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and high versus very high-risk PCa according to Johns Hopkins classification were tabulated without and with adjustment for the number of prostate biopsy cores. RESULTS In 119,574 eligible prostate cancer patients, the rates of NCCN low, intermediate, and high-risk PCa were, respectively, 29.7%, 47.8%, and 22.5%. Of high-risk patients, 39.6% and 60.4% fulfilled high and very high-risk criteria. Without adjustment for number of prostate biopsy cores, the estimated annual percentage changes (EAPC) for low, intermediate, high and very high-risk were respectively -5.5% (32.4%-24.9%, p < .01), +0.5% (47.6%-48.4%, p = .09), +4.1% (8.2%-9.9%, p < .01), and +8.9% (11.8%-16.9%, p < .01), between 2010 and 2015. After adjustment for number of prostate biopsy cores, differences in rates over time disappeared and ranged from 29.8%-29.7% for low risk, 47.9%-47.9% for intermediate risk, 8.9%-9.0% for high-risk, and 13.6%-13.6% for very high-risk PCa (all p > .05). CONCLUSIONS The rates of high and very high-risk PCa are strongly associated with the number of prostate biopsy cores, that in turn may be driven by broader use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mike Wenzel
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Christoph Würnschimmel
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Claudia C Ruvolo
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | - Luigi Nocera
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IBCAS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Zhe Tian
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Fred Saad
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Alberto Briganti
- Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IBCAS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Markus Graefen
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Luis A Kluth
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Philipp Mandel
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Felix K H Chun
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Pierre I Karakiewicz
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Haider MA, Brown J, Yao X, Chin J, Perlis N, Schieda N, Loblaw A. Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: an Updated Systematic Review. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2021; 33:e599-e612. [PMID: 34400038 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2021.07.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/20/2021] [Revised: 07/05/2021] [Accepted: 07/27/2021] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
There has been growing utilisation of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MPMRI) as a non-invasive tool to diagnose and localise clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa). This updated systematic review examines the use of MPMRI in patients with an elevated risk of CSPCa who have had a prior negative transrectal ultrasound systematic biopsy (TRUS-SB) and who were biopsy naïve. MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for existing systematic reviews published up to September 2020. The literature search of the electronic databases combined disease-specific terms (prostate cancer, prostate carcinoma, etc.) and treatment-specific terms (magnetic resonance, etc.). Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MPMRI to template transperineal mapping biopsy (TPMB) or to TRUS-SB. Thirty-six RCTs were eligible. For biopsy-naïve men, accuracy of diagnosis of CSPCa showed sensitivities from 87 to 96% and specificities ranging from 29 to 45%. Meta-analyses for CSPCa showed increased detection favouring MPMRI-targeted biopsy over TRUS-SB by 3% (95% confidence interval 0-7%, P = 0.03) and decreased detection of clinically insignificant prostate cancer (CISPCa) favouring MPMRI by 8% (95% confidence interval -11 to 5%, P < 0.00001). Accuracy of MPMRI for men with prior negative biopsy showed sensitivities of 78-100% and specificities of 30-100%. Meta-analyses comparing MPMRI to TRUS-SB showed increased detection of 5% (95% confidence interval 3-7%, P < 0.0001) with a reduction of CISPCa detection of 7% (95% confidence interval 4-9%, P < 0.00001). The growing acceptance of MPMRI utilisation internationally and the recent publication of several RCTs regarding MPMRI in reducing CISPCa detection rates, particularly in biopsy-naïve men, without loss of sensitivity for CSPCa necessitates the synthesis of updated evidence examining MPMRI in the diagnosis of CSPCa.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M A Haider
- Sinai Health System and University of Toronto, Joint Department of Medical Imaging, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - J Brown
- Program in Evidence-based Care, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - X Yao
- Program in Evidence-based Care, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
| | - J Chin
- London Health Sciences Centre, Victoria Hospital, London, ON, Canada
| | - N Perlis
- Cancer Clinical Research Unit, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - N Schieda
- Department of Radiology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - A Loblaw
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Immunohistochemistry for Prostate Biopsy-Impact on Histological Prostate Cancer Diagnoses and Clinical Decision Making. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2021; 28:2123-2133. [PMID: 34207594 PMCID: PMC8293248 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol28030197] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2021] [Revised: 05/15/2021] [Accepted: 06/07/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND To test the value of immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining in prostate biopsies for changes in biopsy results and its impact on treatment decision-making. METHODS Between January 2017-June 2020, all patients undergoing prostate biopsies were identified and evaluated regarding additional IHC staining for diagnostic purpose. Final pathologic results after radical prostatectomy (RP) were analyzed regarding the effect of IHC at biopsy. RESULTS Of 606 biopsies, 350 (58.7%) received additional IHC staining. Of those, prostate cancer (PCa) was found in 208 patients (59.4%); while in 142 patients (40.6%), PCa could be ruled out through IHC. IHC patients harbored significantly more often Gleason 6 in biopsy (p < 0.01) and less suspicious baseline characteristics than patients without IHC. Of 185 patients with positive IHC and PCa detection, IHC led to a change in biopsy results in 81 (43.8%) patients. Of these patients with changes in biopsy results due to IHC, 42 (51.9%) underwent RP with 59.5% harboring ≥pT3 and/or Gleason 7-10. CONCLUSIONS Patients with IHC stains had less suspicious characteristics than patients without IHC. Moreover, in patients with positive IHC and PCa detection, a change in biopsy results was observed in >40%. Patients with changes in biopsy results partly underwent RP, in which 60% harbored significant PCa.
Collapse
|
20
|
Borghesi M, Bianchi L, Barbaresi U, Vagnoni V, Corcioni B, Gaudiano C, Fiorentino M, Giunchi F, Chessa F, Garofalo M, Bertaccini A, Angelini S, Ercolino A, Casablanca C, Droghetti M, Golfieri R, Schiavina R. Diagnostic performance of MRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsies vs. systematic prostate biopsies in biopsy-naïve, previous negative biopsy patients and men undergoing active surveillance. Minerva Urol Nephrol 2021; 73:357-366. [PMID: 33769008 DOI: 10.23736/s2724-6051.20.03758-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND We aimed to assess the detection rate of overall PCa and csPCa, and the clinical impact of MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy (FUSION-TB) compared to TRUS guided systematic biopsy (SB) in patients with different biopsy settings. METHODS Three hundred and five patients were submitted to FUSION-TB, divided into three groups: biopsy naïve patients, previous negative biopsies and patients under active surveillance (AS). All patients had a single suspicious index lesion at mpMRI. Within these groups, we enrolled men underwent both to FUSION-TB and SB in the same session. Overall detection rate of PCa and csPCa for the two biopsy methods were compared separately between the three groups of patients. RESULTS No differences were observed between the three groups concerning clinical and radiological characteristics. We found no differences in terms of overall PCa detection (66% vs. 63.8%, P=0.617) and csPCa detection (56.4% vs. 51.1%; P=0.225) concerning biopsy naïve patients. In patients previously submitted to a negative biopsy, FUSION-TB showed higher detection rate of csPCa compared to SB alone (41,3% vs. 27% respectively, P=0.038). In patients under AS, no differences were observed between FUSION-TB and SB in terms of overall PCa (50% vs. 73.1%) and csPCa (30.8% vs. 26.9%, respectively; P=0.705) detection. CONCLUSIONS Our results suggest that in men with previously negative biopsy, FUSION-TB showed significantly higher diagnostic performance for clinically significant PCa as compared to SB. Combination of FUSION-TB and SB should be recommended in AS population to offer higher chance of csPCa diagnosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marco Borghesi
- Division of Urology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Lorenzo Bianchi
- Division of Urology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy - .,University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Umberto Barbaresi
- Division of Urology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Valerio Vagnoni
- Division of Urology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Beniamino Corcioni
- Department of Radiology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Caterina Gaudiano
- Department of Radiology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Michelangelo Fiorentino
- Pathology Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.,Department of Pathology, C.A. Pizzardi-Maggiore Hospital, Bologna, Italy
| | - Francesca Giunchi
- Pathology Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Francesco Chessa
- Division of Urology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.,University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Marco Garofalo
- Division of Urology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.,University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Alessandro Bertaccini
- Division of Urology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.,University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Stefano Angelini
- Department of Hematology, G. e C. Mazzoni Hospital, Ascoli Piceno, Italy
| | - Amelio Ercolino
- Division of Urology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Carlo Casablanca
- Division of Urology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Matteo Droghetti
- Division of Urology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Rita Golfieri
- Department of Radiology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Riccardo Schiavina
- Division of Urology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.,University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Wenzel M, Welte MN, Grossmann L, Preisser F, Theissen LH, Humke C, Deuker M, Bernatz S, Gild P, Ahyai S, Karakiewicz PI, Bodelle B, Kluth LA, Chun FKH, Mandel P, Becker A. Multiparametric MRI may Help to Identify Patients With Prostate Cancer in a Contemporary Cohort of Patients With Clinical Bladder Outlet Obstruction Scheduled for Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP). Front Surg 2021; 8:633196. [PMID: 33718429 PMCID: PMC7947872 DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.633196] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/24/2020] [Accepted: 01/25/2021] [Indexed: 01/15/2023] Open
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the value of standard [digital rectal examination (DRE), PSA] and advanced (mpMRI, prostate biopsy) clinical evaluation for prostate cancer (PCa) detection in contemporary patients with clinical bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) scheduled for Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). Material and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 397 patients, who were referred to our tertiary care laser center for HoLEP due to BOO between 11/2017 and 07/2020. Of those, 83 (20.7%) underwent further advanced clinical PCa evaluation with mpMRI and/or prostate biopsy due to elevated PSA and/or lowered PSA ratio and/or suspicious DRE. Logistic regression and binary regression tree models were applied to identify PCa in BOO patients. Results: An mpMRI was conducted in 56 (66%) of 83 patients and revealed PIRADS 4/5 lesions in 14 (25%) patients. Subsequently, a combined systematic randomized and MRI-fusion biopsy was performed in 19 (23%) patients and revealed in PCa detection in four patients (5%). A randomized prostate biopsy was performed in 31 (37%) patients and revealed in PCa detection in three patients (4%). All seven patients (9%) with PCa detection underwent radical prostatectomy with 29% exhibiting non-organ confined disease. Incidental PCa after HoLEP (n = 76) was found in nine patients (12%) with advanced clinical PCa evaluation preoperatively. In univariable logistic regression analyses, PSA, fPSA ratio, and PSA density failed to identify patients with PCa detection. Conversely, patients with a lower International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and PIRADs 4/5 lesion in mpMRI were at higher risk for PCa detection. In multivariable adjusted analyses, PIRADS 4/5 lesions were confirmed as an independent risk factor (OR 9.91, p = 0.04), while IPSS did not reach significance (p = 0.052). Conclusion: In advanced clinical PCa evaluation mpMRI should be considered in patients with elevated total PSA or low fPSA ratio scheduled for BOO treatment with HoLEP. Patients with low IPSS or PIRADS 4/5 lesions in mpMRI are at highest risk for PCa detection. In patients with a history of two or more sets of negative prostate biopsies, advanced clinical PCa evaluation might be omitted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mike Wenzel
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Maria N. Welte
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Lina Grossmann
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Felix Preisser
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Lena H. Theissen
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Clara Humke
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Marina Deuker
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Simon Bernatz
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Philipp Gild
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Sascha Ahyai
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany
| | - Pierre I. Karakiewicz
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Boris Bodelle
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Luis A. Kluth
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Felix K. H. Chun
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Philipp Mandel
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Andreas Becker
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Cata E, Andras I, Ferro M, Kadula P, Leucuta D, Musi G, Matei DV, De Cobelli O, Tamas-Szora A, Caraiani C, Lebovici A, Epure F, Bungardean M, Coman RT, Crisan N. Systematic sampling during MRI-US fusion prostate biopsy can overcome errors of targeting-prospective single center experience after 300 cases in first biopsy setting. Transl Androl Urol 2020; 9:2510-2518. [PMID: 33457225 PMCID: PMC7807351 DOI: 10.21037/tau-20-1001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and targeted biopsy have become an integral part of the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa), as recommended by the European Association of Urology Guidelines. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the performance of MRI and MRI-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy as first biopsy setting in a tertiary center. Methods A cohort of 300 patients was included in the current analysis. All patients presented with clinical or biochemical suspicion of PCa and harbored at least one suspect lesion on mpMRI. MRI-TRUS fusion prostate biopsy, followed by 12 core systematic prostate biopsy were performed by the same operator using a rigid registration system. Results The mean age of the patients was 64 years (IQR: 58–68.5 years) and the mean PSA was 6.35 ng/mL (IQR: 4.84–9.46 ng/mL). Overall cancer and csPCa diagnosis rates were 47% and 40.66%. Overall PCa/csPCa detection rates were 20.4%/11.1%, 52%/45% and 68.5%/66.7% for PI-RADS lesions 3, 4 and 5 (P<0.001/P<0.0001). Larger lesion diameter and lesion volume were associated with PCa diagnosis (P=0.006 and P=0.001, respectively). MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy missed PCa diagnosis in 37 cases (of whom 48.6% ISUP 1) in comparison with 9 patients missed by systematic biopsy (of whom 11.1% ISUP 1). In terms of csPCa, systematic biopsy missed 77.7% of the tumors located in the anterior and transitional areas. The rate of csPCa was highest when targeted biopsy was associated with systematic biopsy: 86.52% vs. 68.79% for targeted biopsy vs. 80.14% for systematic biopsy, P=0.0004. In 60.6% of cases, systematic biopsy was positive for PCa at the same site as the targeted lesion. Of these patients, eight harbored csPCa and were diagnosed exclusively on systematic biopsy. Conclusions MRI-TRUS fusion prostate biopsy improves the diagnosis of csPCa. The main advantage of an MRI-guided approach is the diagnosis of anterior and transitional area tumors. The best results in terms of csPCa diagnosis are obtained by the combination of MRI-TRUS fusion with systematic biopsy. The systematic biopsy performed during MRI-targeted biopsy could have an important role in overcoming errors of MRI-TRUS fusion systems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emanuel Cata
- Urology Department, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj Napoca, Romania.,Urology Department, Municipal Hospital, Cluj Napoca, Romania
| | - Iulia Andras
- Urology Department, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj Napoca, Romania.,Urology Department, Municipal Hospital, Cluj Napoca, Romania
| | - Matteo Ferro
- Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Pierre Kadula
- Urology Department, Municipal Hospital, Cluj Napoca, Romania
| | - Daniel Leucuta
- Medical Informatics and Biostatistics Department, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj Napoca, Romania
| | - Gennaro Musi
- Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Deliu-Victor Matei
- Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Ottavio De Cobelli
- Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.,Department of Oncology and Hematology-Oncology, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Cosmin Caraiani
- Medical Imaging Department, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj Napoca, Romania
| | - Andrei Lebovici
- Radiology Department, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj Napoca, Romania
| | - Flavia Epure
- Medical Imaging Department, Medisprof Cancer Center, Cluj Napoca, Romania
| | - Maria Bungardean
- Pathology Department, County Emergency Hospital, Cluj Napoca, Romania
| | - Radu-Tudor Coman
- Epidemiology Department, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj Napoca, Romania
| | - Nicolae Crisan
- Urology Department, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj Napoca, Romania.,Urology Department, Municipal Hospital, Cluj Napoca, Romania
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Cheng Y, Qi F, Liang L, Zhang L, Cao D, Hua L, Cheng G. Use of Prostate Systematic and Targeted Biopsy on the Basis of Bi-Parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Biopsy-Naïve Patients. J INVEST SURG 2020; 35:92-97. [PMID: 32996795 DOI: 10.1080/08941939.2020.1825884] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To explore the performance of targeted biopsy (TB) in combination with systematic biopsy (SB) in the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) in biopsy naïve patients. METHODS From May 2018 to January 2020, 230 biopsy-naïve men with suspicious bi-parametric MRI [bpMRI; Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score ≥3] were enrolled. All patients had prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 20 ng/ml or less. For each patient, transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy was performed. The primary endpoint was the detection rate of CSPC [clinically-significant PCa, International Society of Urological Pathology grade group (ISUP GG) 2 or higher tumors]. The secondary endpoints were the detection rates of CIPC (clinically insignificant PCa, ISUP GG 1 tumors). RESULTS CSPC was detected in 90 patients. Twelve (13.33%) of them were detected by TB only and 18 (20.00%) by SB only. Detection of CSPC by SB and TB did not differ significantly (p = .36). In 4.35% of 230 patients, CSPC would have been missed if we performed SB only, and in 6.09% of patients if we performed TB only. Moreover, combination of TB and SB did not increase the detection of CIPC. CONCLUSIONS No significant difference was found in the detection of CSPC between TB and SB; however, both techniques revealed substantial added value and combination of TB and SB could further improve this detection rate without increasing the detection of CIPC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yifei Cheng
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China
| | - Feng Qi
- Department of Urologic Surgery, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital & Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research & Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China
| | - Linghui Liang
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China
| | - Lei Zhang
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China
| | - Dongliang Cao
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China
| | - Lixin Hua
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China
| | - Gong Cheng
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Pepe P, Pennisi M, Fraggetta F. How Many Cores Should be Obtained During Saturation Biopsy in the Era of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance? Experience in 875 Patients Submitted to Repeat Prostate Biopsy. Urology 2020; 137:133-137. [DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.11.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/22/2019] [Revised: 11/11/2019] [Accepted: 11/13/2019] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
|
25
|
Wenzel M, Theissen L, Preisser F, Lauer B, Wittler C, Humke C, Bodelle B, Ilievski V, Kempf VAJ, Kluth LA, Chun FKH, Mandel P, Becker A. Complication Rates After TRUS Guided Transrectal Systematic and MRI-Targeted Prostate Biopsies in a High-Risk Region for Antibiotic Resistances. Front Surg 2020; 7:7. [PMID: 32185180 PMCID: PMC7059219 DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2020.00007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/22/2019] [Accepted: 02/14/2020] [Indexed: 01/21/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction: There is still an ongoing debate whether a transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) approach for prostate biopsies is associated with higher (infectious) complications rates compared to transperineal biopsies. This is especially of great interests in settings with elevated frequencies of multidrug resistant organisms (MDRO). Materials and Methods: Between 01/2018 and 05/2019 230 patients underwent a TRUS-guided prostate biopsy at the department of Urology at University Hospital Frankfurt. Patients were followed up within the clinical routine that was not conducted earlier than 6 weeks after the biopsy. Among 230 biopsies, 180 patients took part in the follow-up. No patients were excluded. Patients were analyzed retrospectively regarding complications, infections and underlying infectious agents or needed interventions. Results: Of all patients with follow up, 84 patients underwent a systematic biopsy (SB) and 96 a targeted biopsy (TB) after MRI of the prostate with additional SB. 74.8% of the patients were biopsy-naïve. The most frequent objective complications (classified by Clavien-Dindo) lasting longer than one day after biopsy were hematuria (17.9%, n = 32), hematospermia (13.9%, n = 25), rectal bleeding (2.8%, n = 5), and pain (2.2%, n = 4). Besides a known high MDRO prevalence in the Rhine-Main region, only one patient (0.6%) developed fever after biopsy. One patient each (0.6%) consulted a physician due to urinary retention, rectal bleeding or gross hematuria. There were no significant differences in complications seen between SB and SB + TB patients. The rate of patients who consulted a physician was significantly higher for patients with one or more prior biopsies compared to biopsy-naïve patients. Conclusion: Complications after transrectal prostate biopsies are rare and often self-limiting. Infections were seen in <1% of all patients, regardless of an elevated local prevalence of MDROs. Severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ IIIa) were only seen in 3 (1.7%) of the patients. Repeated biopsy is associated with higher complication rates in general.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mike Wenzel
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Lena Theissen
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Felix Preisser
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
| | | | - Clarissa Wittler
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Clara Humke
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Boris Bodelle
- Department of Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Valentina Ilievski
- Institute for Medical Microbiology and Infection Control, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.,University Center of Infectious Diseases, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.,University Center of Competence for Infection Control of the State of Hesse, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Volkhard A J Kempf
- Institute for Medical Microbiology and Infection Control, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.,University Center of Infectious Diseases, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.,University Center of Competence for Infection Control of the State of Hesse, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Luis A Kluth
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Felix K H Chun
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Philipp Mandel
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
| | - Andreas Becker
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Zhu K, Qin Z, Xue J, Miao C, Tian Y, Liu S, Zhu S, Gu Q, Hou C, Xu A, Yang J, Wang Z. Comparison of prostate cancer detection rates between magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy and transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System in patients with PSA ≥4 ng/mL: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Transl Androl Urol 2019; 8:741-753. [PMID: 32038971 DOI: 10.21037/tau.2019.12.03] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Previous studies have investigated magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy (MRI-TBx) on the detection for prostate cancer (PCa). Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), as a standardized MRI reporting system, has widely been used in the management of PCa. However, basing the PI-RADS score, the comparability between MRI-TBx and transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-Bx) in diagnosing PCa remained inconsistent or even controversial. Thus, this systematic meta-analysis aimed to assess the value of PI-RADS in sifting better prostate biopsy method. Methods A meta-analysis including 10 articles was performed. In these included studies, biopsy-naive subjects with concerning PSA levels and/or an abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) were consecutively enrolled by referral from urologists. All subjects underwent multiparameter MRI (mpMRI) prostate and the results were scored independently by PI-RADS. Subjects with equivocal (PI-RADS 3) and intermediate/high-risk (PI-RADS 4/5) lesions underwent MRI-TBx and followed by TRUS-Bx performed by a urologist. The online databases PubMed, Embase and Web of Science were searched to find all correlated articles until October 1st, 2019. Data were pooled by odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to assess the strength of the associations. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on Gleason score. Results Overall, 10 studies were included in this meta-analysis from January, 2015 to June, 2019. In the comparison of the detection of MRI-TBx and TRUS-Bx in PCa patients, TRUS-Bx had a significant advantage in overall PCa detection compared with MRI-TBx (OR =0.78, 95% CI: 0.62-0.98) in PI-RADS 3. Basing subgroup analysis of Gleason score (csPCa: Gleason score ≥7; non-csPCa: Gleason score <7), a summary analysis of the detection rate of csPCa showed that no significant difference was found (OR =0.82, 95% CI: 0.58-1.16); Meanwhile, no significant difference in non-csPCa patients was also detected (OR =0.83, 95% CI: 0.53-1.28). In PI-RADS 4 or 5, no significant results were detected between MRI-TBx and TRUS-Bx (OR =0.96, 95% CI: 0.87-1.06) for overall PCa detection. The stratification analyses by Gleason score found that TRUS-Bx had an advantage over MRI-TBx in non-csPCa patients (OR =0.76, 95% CI: 0.60-0.98); However, there was no significant difference in the detection rate of csPCa (OR =1.05, 95% CI: 0.93-1.20). Conclusions This meta-analysis indicated that using TRUS-Bx was better than MRI-TBx for the diagnosis of PCa in PI-RADS 3; Besides, TRUS-Bx have an advantage over MRI-TBx in the detection for non-csPCa in PI-RADS 4 or 5. Therefore, PI-RADS could be used as a MRI evaluation system in the selection of prostate biopsy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kai Zhu
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, China
| | - Zhiqiang Qin
- Department of Urology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210006, China
| | - Jianxin Xue
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, China.,Department of Urology, The Second Hospital of Nanjing, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing 210003, China
| | - Chenkui Miao
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, China
| | - Ye Tian
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, China
| | - Shouyong Liu
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, China
| | - Shenhao Zhu
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, China
| | - Qi Gu
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, China
| | - Chao Hou
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, China
| | - Aiming Xu
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, China
| | - Jie Yang
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, China
| | - Zengjun Wang
- Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210029, China
| |
Collapse
|