Comparison of detection of significant and insignificant carcinoma using systematic and targeted MRI/TRUS fusion prostate biopsy
Authors:
Miroslav Záleský 1,4; Jiří Stejskal 1; Ivo Minárik 3; Markéta Koldová 3; Vanda Adamcová 1; Jana Votrubová 2; Adam Pavličko 2; Marek Babjuk 3; Roman Zachoval 1,4,5
Authors‘ workplace:
Urologické oddělení, Thomayerova nemocnice, Praha
1; Radiologické oddělení, Thomayerova nemocnice, Praha
2; Urologická klinika, Fakultní nemocnice Motol, Praha
3; Urologické klinika 1. LF UK, Praha
4; Urologické klinika 3. LF UK, Praha
5
Published in:
Ces Urol 2018; 22(2): 115-121
Category:
Original Articles
Overview
Major statement:
Detection of insignificant prostate cancer by systematic biopsy is significantly higher than by targeted MRI fusion biopsy. Targeted biopsy in combination with systematic biopsy reached significantly higher detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer than systematic biopsy in the rebiopsy group.
Introduction and objectives:
Detection of insignificant cancer is one of the major problems of PSA-based prostate cancer diagnostic algorithm with subsequent systematic prostate biopsy. MRI with targeted fusion biopsy should increase the detection of significant prostate cancer. The aim of this bicentric prospective study was to compare detection rates of clinically significant and insignificant prostate cancer by MRI/ TRUS fusion targeted biopsy (TG) and systematic biopsy (SB). Materials and methods: MRI was performed on 419 patients based on a suspicion of prostate cancer linked to elevated PSA levels. MRI was positive in 385 patients, the first biopsy group (FB) had 211 and rebiopsy group (RB) had 174 patients. A subsequent TG, followed by a SB was performed on these patients.
Results:
In detection of significant prostate cancer a statically significant difference was reached for TG+SB against SB in rebiopsy group – 35.1 % vs. 25.3 %, p = 0.047. In detection of insignificant prostate cancer the systematic biopsy had a significantly higher detection rate than targeted in both subgroups (FB and RB) – FB 11.9 % vs. 4.7 %, p = 0.008; RB 13.8 % vs. 6.9 % p = 0,034. Conclusion: Detection of insignificant prostate cancer by systematic biopsy is significantly higher than by targeted MRI fusion biopsy. MRI/TRUS targeted biopsy in combination with systematic biopsy had a significantly higher detection rates than systematic biopsy in the repeated biopsy only.
KEY WORDS
Prostate cancer, diagnostics, MRI, prostate biopsy, fusion.
Sources
1. Walz J, Graefen M, Chun FK, et al. High incidence of prostate cancer detected by saturation biopsy after previous negative biopsy series. Eur Urol. 2006; 50(3): 498–505.
2. Eichler K, Hempel S, Wilby J, et al. Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J Urol. 2006; 175(5): 1605–1612.
3. Zaytoun OM, Stephenson AJ, Fareed K, et al. When serial prostate biopsy is recommended: most cancers detected are clinically insignificant. BJU Int. 2012; 110(7): 987–992.
4. Futterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P, et al. Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2015; 68(6): 1045–1053.
5. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU‑ESTRO‑SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017; 71(4): 618–629.
6. Kudláčková Š, Záťura F, Tudos Z. Cílená biopsie prostaty pomocí magnetické rezonance – 1. část. Urol. praxi 2017; 18(2): 69–72.
7. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994; 271(5): 368–374.
8. Siddiqui MM, Rais‑Bahrami S, Turkbey B, et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion‑guided biopsy with ultrasound‑guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 2015; 313(4): 390–397.
9. Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging‑targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound‑guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta‑analysis. Eur Urol. 2015; 68(3): 438–450.
10. van Hove A, Savoie PH, Maurin C, et al. Comparison of image‑guided targeted biopsies versus systematic randomized biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic literature review of well‑designed studies. World J Urol. 2014; 32(4): 847–858.
11. Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, et al. Comparing three different techniques for magnetic resonance imaging‑targeted prostate biopsies: a systematic review of In‑bore versus magnetic resonance imaging‑transrectal ultrasound fusion versus cognitive registration. Is there a preferred technique? Eur Urol. 2017; 71(4): 517–531.
12. Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, et al. A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging‑ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR‑targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial. Eur Urol. 2014; 66(2): 343–351.
13. Puech P, Rouviere O, Renard‑Penna R, et al. Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR‑targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US‑MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy-- prospective multicenter study. Radiology. 2013; 268(2): 461–469.
14. Jelidi A, Ohana M, Labani A, et al. Prostate cancer diagnosis: efficacy of a simple electromagnetic MRI‑TRUS fusion method to target biopsies. Eur J Radiol. 2017; 86: 127–134.
15. Ahmed HU, El‑Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi‑parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017; 389(10071): 815–822.
16. Baco E, Rud E, Eri LM, et al. A randomized controlled trial to assess and compare the outcomes of two‑core prostate biopsy guided by fused magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound images and traditional 12-core systematic biopsy. Eur Urol. 2016; 69(1): 149–156.
17. Cash H, Gunzel K, Maxeiner A, et al. Prostate cancer detection on transrectal ultrasonography‑guided random biopsy despite negative real‑time magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion‑guided targeted biopsy: reasons for targeted biopsy failure. BJU Int. 2016; 118(1): 35–43.
Labels
Paediatric urologist Nephrology UrologyArticle was published in
Czech Urology
2018 Issue 2
Most read in this issue
- Mondor’s penile disease – our results
- MRI ultrasound fusion biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer
- Usage of indocyanine green in urological robotic surgery
- A rare case of eosinophilic funiculitis