Impact of Lesion Visibility on Transrectal Ultrasound on the Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer (Gleason Score 3 + 4 or Greater) with Transrectal Ultrasound-Magnetic Resonance Imaging Fusion Biopsy

2018 ◽  
Vol 199 (3) ◽  
pp. 699-705 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirema Garcia-Reyes ◽  
Hao G. Nguyen ◽  
Ronald J. Zagoria ◽  
Katsuto Shinohara ◽  
Peter R. Carroll ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Fusion Biopsy ◽  
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.

One-year experience of government-funded magnetic resonance imaging prior to prostate biopsy: A case for omitting biopsy in men with a negative magnetic resonance imaging

2021 ◽  
pp. 205141582110043
Author(s):  
Hanna J El-Khoury ◽  
Niranjan J Sathianathen ◽  
Yuxin Jiao ◽  
Reza Farzan ◽  
Dennis Gyomber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Prostate Biopsy ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Clinically Significant

Objectives: This study aimed to characterise the accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) as an adjunct to prostate biopsy, and to assess the effect of the new Australian Medicare rebate on practice at a metropolitan public hospital. Patients and methods: We identified patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy at a single institution over a two-year period. Patients were placed into two groups, depending upon whether their consent was obtained before or after the introduction of the Australian Medicare rebate for mpMRI. We extracted data on mpMRI results and TRUS-guided biopsy histopathology. Descriptive statistics were used to demonstrate baseline patient characteristics as well as MRI and histopathology results. Results: A total of 252 patients were included for analysis, of whom 128 underwent biopsy following the introduction of the Medicare rebate for mpMRI. There was a significant association between Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System v2 (PI-RADS) classification and the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer ( p<0.01). Only one man with PI-RADS ⩽2 was found to have clinically significant prostate cancer. Four men with a PI-RADS 3 lesion were found to have clinically significant cancer. A PI-RADS 4 or 5 lesion was significantly associated with the diagnosis of clinically significant cancer on multivariable analysis. Conclusion: mpMRI is an important adjunct to biopsy in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Our findings support the safety of omitting/delaying prostate biopsy in men with negative mpMRI. Level of evidence: Level 3 retrospective case-control study.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in diagnosing prostate cancer.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 25-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Ingham ◽  
Matthew Mossanen ◽  
Ye Wang ◽  
Steven Lee Chang
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Fusion Biopsy

25 Background: We sought to determine if the reported improved performance of magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound (MRI-US) fusion biopsy over systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS) in the detection of prostate cancer justifies the added cost of the MR imaging. Methods: A decision-analytic Markov model with a lifetime horizon of 10 years was developed to evaluate diagnostic accuracy, long-term health outcomes, costs, and quality-of-life of two strategies (i.e., TRUS versus MRI-US fusion biopsy [prostate MRI followed potentially by MRI-US fusion biopsy]) as the initial diagnostic test in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen ( > 4 ng/ml) without prior evaluation. Probabilities of clinical events were obtained from published literature. Direct medical costs, including diagnostic and treatment-related costs, were derived from the Premier Hospital Database. Costs were inflated to 2015 US dollars and discounted at an annual rate of 3%. Health outcomes were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), which were determined based on published literature and expert opinion. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and performed sensitivity analyses to assess uncertainty. Results: The MRI-US fusion biopsy strategy yielded a lower average discounted cost ($5,358 versus $6,372) and higher total QALYs-gained (7.21 versus 7.19) than TRUS. The reduced expenditures associated with MRI-US fusion biopsy was primarily due to avoiding intervention for clinically insignificant prostate cancer. The results were robust with the sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: For men in the United States with an elevated PSA, the use of MRI-US fusion biopsy in the evaluation for prostate cancer represents a greater value than TRUS, the standard of care option. Widespread adoption of MRI-US fusion biopsy may serve to reduce the economic burden of prostate cancer.

scholarly journals Optimal PSA Threshold for Obtaining MRI-Fusion Biopsy in Biopsy-Naïve Patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Luke L. Wang ◽  
Brandon L. Henslee ◽  
Peter B. Sam ◽  
Chad A. LaGrange ◽  
Shawna L. Boyle
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Cancer Detection ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Targeted Biopsy ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Fusion Biopsy ◽  
Clinically Significant

Objective. The study investigates the prostate-specific antigen threshold for adding targeted, software-based, magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy during a standard 12-core biopsy in biopsy-naïve patients. It secondarily explores whether the targeted biopsy is necessary in setting of abnormal digital rectal examination. Methods. 260 patients with suspected localized prostate cancer with no prior biopsy underwent prostate magnetic resonance imaging and were found to have Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score ≥   3 lesion(s). All 260 patients underwent standard 12-core biopsy and targeted biopsy during the same session. Clinically significant cancer was Gleason ≥ 3 + 4. Results. Percentages of patients with prostate-specific antigen 0–1.99, 2–3.99, 4–4.99, 5–5.99, 6–9.99, and ≥ 10 were 3.0%, 4.7%, 20.8%, 16.9%, 37.7%, and 16.9%, respectively. Cumulative frequency of clinically significant prostate cancer increased with the addition of targeted biopsy compared with standard biopsy alone across all prostate-specific antigen ranges. The difference in clinically significant cancer detection between targeted plus standard biopsy compared to standard biopsy alone becomes statistically significant at prostate-specific antigen >4.3 ( p = 0.031 ). At this threshold, combination biopsy detected 20 clinically significant prostate cancers, while standard detected 14 with 88% sensitivity and 20% specificity. Excluding targeted biopsy in setting of a positive digital rectal exam would save 12.3% magnetic resonance imaging and miss 1.8% clinically significant cancers in our cohort. Conclusions. In biopsy-naïve patients, at prostate-specific antigen >4.3, there is a significant increase in clinically significant prostate cancer detection when targeted biopsy is added to standard biopsy. Obtaining standard biopsy alone in patients with abnormal digital rectal examinations would miss 1.8% clinically significant cancers in our cohort.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document