scholarly journals Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: What Urologists Need to Know. Part 2: Interpretation

2020 ◽  
Vol 77 (4) ◽  
pp. 469-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bas Israël ◽  
Marloes van der Leest ◽  
Michiel Sedelaar ◽  
Anwar R. Padhani ◽  
Patrik Zámecnik ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Clinically Significant

Naive patients with suspicious prostate cancer and positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI): is it time for fusion target biopsy alone?

2021 ◽  
pp. 205141582110237
Author(s):  
Enrico Checcucci ◽  
Sabrina De Cillis ◽  
Daniele Amparore ◽  
Diletta Garrou ◽  
Roberta Aimar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Fusion Biopsy ◽  
Grade Group ◽  
Final Pathology ◽  
Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Clinically Significant

Objectives: To determine if standard biopsy still has a role in the detection of prostate cancer or clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive patients with positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Materials and methods: We extracted, from our prospective maintained fusion biopsy database, patients from March 2014 to December 2018. The detection rate of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer and complication rate were analysed in a cohort of patients who underwent fusion biopsy alone (group A) or fusion biopsy plus standard biopsy (group B). The International Society of Urological Pathology grade group determined on prostate biopsy with the grade group determined on final pathology among patients who underwent radical prostatectomy were compared. Results: Prostate cancer was found in 249/389 (64.01%) and 215/337 (63.8%) patients in groups A and B, respectively ( P=0.98), while the clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate was 57.8% and 55.1% ( P=0.52). No significant differences in complications were found. No differences in the upgrading rate between biopsy and final pathology finding after radical prostatectomy were recorded. Conclusions: In biopsy-naive patients, with suspected prostate cancer and positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging the addition of standard biopsy to fusion biopsy did not increase significantly the detection rate of prostate cancer or clinically significant prostate cancer. Moreover, the rate of upgrading of the cancer grade group between biopsy and final pathology was not affected by the addition of standard biopsy. Level of evidence: Not applicable for this multicentre audit.

scholarly journals MultiParametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Based Nomogram for Predicting Prostate Cancer and Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Men Undergoing Repeat Prostate Biopsy

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Cong Huang ◽  
Gang Song ◽  
He Wang ◽  
Guangjie Ji ◽  
Jie Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Prostate Biopsy ◽  
Curve Analysis ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Decision Curve Analysis ◽  
Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Systematic Prostate Biopsy

Objective. To develop and internally validate nomograms based on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to predict prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in patients with a previous negative prostate biopsy. Materials and Methods. The clinicopathological parameters of 231 patients who underwent a repeat systematic prostate biopsy and mpMRI were reviewed. Based on Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System, the mpMRI results were assigned into three groups: Groups “negative,” “suspicious,” and “positive.” Two clinical nomograms for predicting the probabilities of PCa and csPCa were constructed. The performances of nomograms were assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs), calibrations, and decision curve analysis. Results. The median PSA was 15.03 ng/ml and abnormal DRE was presented in 14.3% of patients in the entire cohort. PCa was detected in 75 patients (32.5%), and 59 (25.5%) were diagnosed with csPCa. In multivariate analysis, age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), prostate volume (PV), digital rectal examination (DRE), and mpMRI finding were significantly independent predictors for PCa and csPCa (all p < 0.01). Of those patients diagnosed with PCa or csPCa, 20/75 (26.7%) and 18/59 (30.5%) had abnormal DRE finding, respectively. Two mpMRI-based nomograms with super predictive accuracy were constructed (AUCs = 0.878 and 0.927, p < 0.001), and both exhibited excellent calibration. Decision curve analysis also demonstrated a high net benefit across a wide range of probability thresholds. Conclusion. mpMRI combined with age, PSA, PV, and DRE can help predict the probability of PCa and csPCa in patients who underwent a repeat systematic prostate biopsy after a previous negative biopsy. The two nomograms may aid the decision-making process in men with prior benign histology before the performance of repeat prostate biopsy.

scholarly journals Comparison of micro-ultrasound and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: A multicenter, prospective analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurence Klotz ◽  
Giovanni Lughezzani ◽  
Davide Maffei ◽  
Andrea Sanchez ◽  
Jose Gregorio Pereira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
High Resolution ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Software Fusion

Introduction: High-resolution micro-ultrasound has the capability of imaging prostate cancer based on detecting alterations in ductal anatomy, analogous to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). This technology has the potential advantages of relatively low cost, simplicity, and accessibility compared to mpMRI. This multicenter, prospective registry aims to compare the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) of mpMRI with high-resolution micro-ultrasound imaging for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Methods: We included 1040 subjects at 11 sites in seven countries who had prior mpMRI and underwent ExactVu micro-ultrasound-guided biopsy. Biopsies were taken from both mpMRI targets (PI-RADS >3 and micro-ultrasound targets (PRIMUS >3). Systematic biopsies (up to 14 cores) were also performed. Various strategies were used for mpMRI target sampling, including cognitive fusion with micro-ultrasound, separate software-fusion systems, and software-fusion using the micro-ultrasound FusionVu system. Clinically significant cancer was those with Gleason grade group ≥2. Results: Overall, 39.5% were positive for clinically significant prostate cancer. Micro-ultrasound and mpMRI sensitivity was 94% vs. 90%, respectively (p=0.03), and NPV was 85% vs. 77%, respectively. Specificities of micro-ultrasound and MRI were both 22%, with similar PPV (44% vs. 43%). This represents the initial experience with the technology at most of the participating sites and, therefore, incorporates a learning curve. Number of cores, diagnostic strategy, blinding to MRI results, and experience varied between sites. Conclusions: In this initial multicenter registry, micro-ultrasound had comparable or higher sensitivity for clinically significant prostate cancer compared to mpMRI, with similar specificity. Micro-ultrasound is a low-cost, single-session option for prostate screening and targeted biopsy. Further larger-scale studies are required for validation of these findings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document