1
|
Liu M, Xie Z, Tang W, Liang G, Zhao Z, Wu T. Advanced prostate cancer diagnosed by bone metastasis biopsy immediately after initial negative prostate biopsy: a case report and literature review. Front Oncol 2024; 14:1365969. [PMID: 38800391 PMCID: PMC11116681 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1365969] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/05/2024] [Accepted: 04/23/2024] [Indexed: 05/29/2024] Open
Abstract
Prostate cancer (PCa) is a prevalent male malignancy that originates in the epithelial cells of the prostate. In terms of incidence and mortality of malignant tumors in men, PCa ranks second and fifth globally and first and third among men in Europe and the United States, respectively. These figures have gradually increased in recent years. The primary modalities used to diagnose PCa include prostate-specific antigen (PSA), multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), and prostate puncture biopsy. Among these techniques, prostate puncture biopsy is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of PCa; however, this method carries the potential for missed diagnoses. The preoperative evaluation of the patient in this study suggested advanced PCa. However, the initial prostate puncture biopsy was inconsistent with the preoperative diagnosis, and instead of waiting for a repeat puncture of the prostate primary, we performed a biopsy of the rib metastasis, which was later diagnosed as advanced PCa.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Zeju Zhao
- Department of Urology, The Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, Guizhou, China
| | - Tao Wu
- Department of Urology, The Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, Guizhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Drăgoescu PO, Drocaș AI, Drăgoescu AN, Pădureanu V, Pănuș A, Stănculescu AD, Radu MA, Florescu LM, Gheonea IA, Mirea C, Mitroi G. Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Targeted by Magnetic Resonance Imaging Cognitive Fusion. Diagnostics (Basel) 2023; 13:1373. [PMID: 37189474 PMCID: PMC10137419 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13081373] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/20/2023] [Revised: 04/05/2023] [Accepted: 04/07/2023] [Indexed: 05/17/2023] Open
Abstract
Prostate cancer is among the most frequently diagnosed cancers and a leading cause of cancer-related death in men. Currently, the most reliable and widely used imaging test for prostate cancer diagnosis is multiparametric pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). Modern biopsy techniques are based on the computerised merging of ultrasound and MRI images to provide better vision during the biopsy procedure (Fusion Biopsy). However, the method is expensive due to high equipment cost. Cognitive fusion of ultrasound and MRI images has recently emerged as a cheaper and easier alternative to computerised fusion. The aim of this prospective study is to perform an in-patient comparison of the systematic prostate biopsy procedure (SB) vs. cognitive fusion (CF) guided prostate biopsy method in terms of safety, ease of use, cancer detection rate and clinically significant cancer detection. We enrolled 103 patients with suspected prostate cancer that were biopsy naive, with PSA > 4 ng/dL and PIRADS score of 3, 4 or 5. All patients received a transperineal standard 12-18 cores systematic biopsy (SB) and a four-cores targeted cognitive fusion (CF) biopsy. Following the prostate biopsy, 68% of the patients were diagnosed with prostate cancer (70/103 patients). SB diagnosis rate was 62% while CF biopsy was slightly better with a 66% rate. There was a significant 20% increase in clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate for the CF compared to SB (p < 0.05) and a significant prostate cancer risk upgrade from the low to the intermediate risk category (13%, p = 0.041). Transperineal cognitive fusion targeted prostate biopsy is a straightforward biopsy method that is easy to perform and is a safe alternative to standard systematic biopsy with improved significant cancer detection accuracy. A combined targeted and systematic approach should be used for the best diagnostic results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Andrei Ioan Drocaș
- Department of Urology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania
| | - Alice Nicoleta Drăgoescu
- Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania
| | - Vlad Pădureanu
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania
| | - Andrei Pănuș
- Department of Urology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania
| | - Andreea Doriana Stănculescu
- Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania
| | - Mihai Alexandru Radu
- Department of Urology, Emergency Clinical County Hospital of Craiova, 200642 Craiova, Romania
| | - Lucian Mihai Florescu
- Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania
| | - Ioana Andreea Gheonea
- Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania
| | - Cecil Mirea
- Department of Surgery, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania
| | - George Mitroi
- Department of Urology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova, 200349 Craiova, Romania
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Bass EJ, Pantovic A, Connor MJ, Loeb S, Rastinehad AR, Winkler M, Gabe R, Ahmed HU. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy techniques compared to transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2021; 25:174-179. [PMID: 34548624 PMCID: PMC9184263 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-021-00449-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2021] [Revised: 08/10/2021] [Accepted: 08/20/2021] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
Background Multiparametric MRI localizes cancer in the prostate, allowing for MRI guided biopsy (MRI-GB) 43 alongside transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy (TRUS-GB). Three MRI-GB approaches exist; visual estimation (COG-TB); fusion software-assisted (FUS-TB) and MRI ‘in-bore’ biopsy (IB-TB). It is unknown whether any of these are superior. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to address three questions. First, whether MRI-GB is superior to TRUS-GB at detecting clinically significant PCa (csPCa). Second, whether MRI-GB is superior to TRUS-GB at avoiding detection of insignificant PCa. Third, whether any MRI-GB strategy is superior at detecting csPCa. Methods A systematic literature review from 2015 to 2019 was performed in accordance with the START recommendations. Studies reporting PCa detection rates, employing MRI-GB and TRUS-GB were included and evaluated using the QUADAS-2 checklist. 1553 studies were found, of which 43 were included in the meta-analysis. Results For csPCa, MRI-GB was superior in detection to TRUS-GB (0.83 vs. 0.63 [p = 0.02]). MRI-GB was superior in detection to TRUS-GB at avoiding detection of insignificant PCa. No MRI-GB technique was superior at detecting csPCa (IB-TB 0.87; COG TB 0.81; FUS-TB 0.81, [p = 0.55]). There was significant heterogeneity observed between the included studies. Conclusions In patients with suspected PCa on MRI, MRI-GB offers superior rates of csPCa detection and reduces detection of insignificant PCa compared to TRUS-GB. No individual MRI-GB technique was found to be better in csPCa detection. Prospective adequately powered randomized controlled trials are required.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E J Bass
- Imperial Prostate. Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK. .,Imperial Urology, Division of Cancer, Cardiovascular Medicine and Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
| | - A Pantovic
- Centre of Research Excellence in Nutrition and Metabolism, Institute for Medical Research -, Belgrade, Serbia
| | - M J Connor
- Imperial Prostate. Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.,Imperial Urology, Division of Cancer, Cardiovascular Medicine and Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - S Loeb
- Department of Urology and Population Health, New York University and Manhattan Veterans Affairs, New York, NY, USA
| | - A R Rastinehad
- Department of Urology, Lenox Hill Hospital at Northwell Health, New York, NY, USA
| | - M Winkler
- Imperial Prostate. Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.,Imperial Urology, Division of Cancer, Cardiovascular Medicine and Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Rhian Gabe
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - H U Ahmed
- Imperial Prostate. Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.,Imperial Urology, Division of Cancer, Cardiovascular Medicine and Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Febres-Aldana CA, Alghamdi S, Weppelmann TA, Lastarria E, Bhandari A, Omarzai Y, Poppiti RJ. Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy combined with systematic 12-core ultrasound-guided biopsy improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: Are we ready to abandon the systematic approach? Urol Ann 2020; 12:366-372. [PMID: 33776334 PMCID: PMC7992529 DOI: 10.4103/ua.ua_123_19] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/03/2019] [Accepted: 12/23/2019] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Multiparametric (mp) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy (TB) has improved the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csCaP) using the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) reporting system, leading some authors to conclude that TB can replace the 12-core systematic biopsy (SB). We compared the diagnostic performance of TB with SB at our institution. Methods: Eighty-three men with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels (6.6 ng/mL, interquartile range [IQR] 4.5–9.2) and abnormal mp-MRI (127 lesions, PI-RADS ≥3, median size: 1.1 cm, IQR 0.8–1.6) underwent simultaneous TB and SB. Diagnosis of any CaP (Gleason score, [GS] ≥6) and csCaP (GS ≥7) was compared using the McNemar's exact test. Results: SB showed higher, but not statistically significant, detection rates of any CaP and csCaP (51.8% and 34.9%) versus TB (44.6% and 28.9%) (P = 0.286 and P = 0.359, respectively). TB outperformed SB in the quantification of 56.6% CaP and detecting cancer in anterior sectors (7.2%). Compared to SB, TB missed twice the amount of any CaP and csCaP. SB alone detected 22.2% of all csCaPs and upgraded 20.6% of TB-detected CaP. SB identified cancer invisible on mp-MRI (13.7% of all CaP) or missed by TB due to a small size (<1 cm) and sampling error (7% of lesions). Conclusion: A combination of SB with TB remained necessary for achieving the highest cancer detection rates. Limiting prostate biopsy to TB alone can miss csCaP due to the presence of synchronous high-grade cancer invisible on MRI or failure to hit the target. TB is the best approach for anterior lesions and tumor quantification.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Sarah Alghamdi
- Arkadi M. Rywlin Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Mount Sinai Medical Center, Florida, USA
| | - Thomas A Weppelmann
- Department of Pathology, Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Florida, USA
| | - Emilio Lastarria
- Columbia University Division of Urology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami Beach, Florida, USA
| | - Akshay Bhandari
- Columbia University Division of Urology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami Beach, Florida, USA
| | - Yumna Omarzai
- Arkadi M. Rywlin Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Mount Sinai Medical Center, Florida, USA.,Department of Pathology, Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Florida, USA
| | - Robert J Poppiti
- Arkadi M. Rywlin Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Mount Sinai Medical Center, Florida, USA.,Department of Pathology, Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Florida, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Nilsson P, Ströberg P. Are TRUS-guided prostate biopsies in clinical practice robust enough to make a correct assessment of the surgical strategy in prostatectomies? Poor correlation between preoperative prostate biopsies and postoperative specimens. Scand J Urol 2019; 53:282-286. [PMID: 31452432 DOI: 10.1080/21681805.2019.1653362] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
Objective: TRUS-guided prostatic biopsies are the mainstay procedure to diagnose prostatic cancer. The aim was to investigate how accurate and reliable these biopsies are by comparing them with the final pathology results after prostatectomy.Materials and methods: One hundred consecutive patients diagnosed with localized prostatic cancer using this technique and who subsequently underwent a radical prostatectomy in Västerbotten County were included in this study. From the pathological-anatomical diagnosis (PAD) of core needle biopsies, data was extracted on the location of the tumour within the prostate, the tumour volume and the Gleason score, and compared with the characteristics of the prostatectomy specimen. The frequency and type of deviation between the pre-operative and post-operative examinations was recorded.Results: In 95% of the cases there was a poor correlation between the pre-operative and post-operative pathological reports. In the final report, 48% had a higher Gleason score and 88% had deviations in localization when compared with the information from the biopsies. If known prior to surgery, a total of 104 of these deviations might have had a significant impact on the surgical strategy.Conclusions: The pre-operative biopsies in this setting rarely match the final prostate PAD results (5%). The most common deviations were in localization and in Gleason score, where the majority consisted of a higher Gleason score and/or tumour presence in a previously unknown location. This information, if known prior to surgery, might have altered the treatment strategy and ultimately the outcome of the treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pontus Nilsson
- Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences, Urology and Andrology, Umeå University, Umea, Sweden
| | - Peter Ströberg
- Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences, Urology and Andrology, Umeå University, Umea, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW To summarize the highest level evidence that was acquired within the last years, with regard to diagnosis of prostate cancer. With many secondary diagnostic tools becoming available, and not being mentioned in the guidelines, this review is meant to assist clinical decision-making in initial biopsy and rebiopsy settings. RECENT FINDINGS The PROMIS Trial delivered level 1b evidence about the diagnostic accuracy of prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) as a triage tool for prostate biopsy. MRI-ultrasound-fusions-targeted biopsy has been evaluated and compared with the standard of care, and has been found to have a higher cancer detection rate. The different approaches to MRI-guided biopsies do not show significant differences. Urine biomarkers analysing RNA as well as genetic assays of biopsy specimen have also shown to be helpful in the decision to (re-)biopsy a patient, especially in combination with MRI. SUMMARY Patients and doctors alike have been trying to avoid prostate biopsies, the risks, and the side effects of potential overtreatment. Imaging and other biomarkers are used to increase diagnostic accuracy, yielding more precise information to act on. None of these secondary diagnostic tools are perfect, yet they can, and should be used if one stays aware of their limitations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Shahrokh Shariat
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Vanden Berg RNW, McClure TD, Margolis DJA. A Review of Prostate Biopsy Techniques. Semin Roentgenol 2018; 53:213-218. [PMID: 30031414 DOI: 10.1053/j.ro.2018.04.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Affiliation(s)
| | - Timothy D McClure
- Department of Urology, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY; Department of Radiology, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY
| | - Daniel J A Margolis
- Department of Radiology, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY
| |
Collapse
|