scholarly journals Diagnostic Accuracy of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Fusion Guided Targeted Biopsy Evaluated by Transperineal Template Saturation Prostate Biopsy for the Detection and Characterization of Prostate Cancer

2018 ◽  
Vol 200 (2) ◽  
pp. 309-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashkan Mortezavi ◽  
Olivia Märzendorfer ◽  
Olivio F. Donati ◽  
Gianluca Rizzi ◽  
Niels J. Rupp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Prostate Biopsy ◽  
Targeted Biopsy ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging

scholarly journals MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy in diagnostics of prostate cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 86-93
Author(s):  
R.A. Romanov ◽  
◽  
A.V. Koryakin ◽  
A.V. Sivkov ◽  
B.Ya. Alekseev ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Prostate Biopsy ◽  
Targeted Biopsy ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Fusion Biopsy ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Mri ◽  
Targeted Biopsies

Introduction. Significant improvement in the quality of visualization of the prostate using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), as well as the development of technologies for virtual combination of MRI and ultrasound images opens new horizons in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. The introduction of the PI-RADS system has allowed the standardization of MRI findings, and the development of fusion biopsy systems seeks to make diagnostics more accurate and less operator-dependent. Materials and methods. In this literature review, we evaluate the effectiveness of various biopsy approaches and discuss the prospects for targeted biopsies. The search for publications was carried out in the databases PubMed, e-library, Web of Scince et al. For citation, 55 literature sources were selected that met the search criteria for the keywords, «prostate cancer», «biopsy», «MRI», «TRUS», «fusion». Results. Diagnosis of prostate cancer using MRI. Modern technologies for radiological diagnosis of prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are based on the standardized PI-RADS protocol, using different modes (T2, diffusion-weighted images and contrast enhancement), which provides the best visualization of tumor-suspicious nodes in the prostate gland, allowing determination of lesion localization and size for subsequent targeted biopsy. Options for performing a prostate biopsy to diagnose prostate cancer. A description of the methods and effectiveness of transrectal and transperineal biopsy under ultrasound guidance is carried out - due to the fact that ultrasound diagnostics of prostate cancer has a rather low sensitivity due to small differences in the ultrasound structure of normal and tumor tissue of the prostate, an extended template biopsy technique was proposed, which involves puncture of the prostate through a special lattice. It also describes the technology of fusion biopsy and also provides literature data comparing the diagnostic accuracy of standard TRUS and fusion prostate biopsy, as well as the importance of transrectal / transperineal access. Questions for further study. Given the desire to reduce the number of biopsies while maintaining or even increasing the accuracy of diagnosing prostate cancer, data from studies investigating the feasibility of combining polyfocal (non-targeted) and targeted (targeted) biopsies are presented. Conclusion. The existing methods of non-targeted biopsy (polyfocal, saturation, template) and targeted (fusion biopsy) have their advantages and disadvantages, which currently do not allow making certain recommendations for their use, but a significant number of authors prefer MRI-as sisted, fusion -biopsy.

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 Evidence-based guideline recommendations on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: A Cancer Care Ontario clinical practice guideline

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masoom A. Haider ◽  
Xiaomei Yao ◽  
Andrew Loblaw ◽  
Antonio Finelli
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Practice Guideline ◽  
Elevated Risk ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Targeted Biopsy ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Systematic Biopsy

This clinical guideline focuses on: 1) the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPC) in patients with an elevated risk of CSPC and who are biopsy-naïve; and 2) the use of mpMRI in diagnosing CSPC in patients with a persistently elevated risk of having CSPC and who have a negative transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided systematic biopsy.The methods of the Practice Guideline Development Cycle were used. MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library (1997‒April 2014), main guideline websites, and relevant annual meeting abstracts (2011‒2014) were searched. Internal and external reviews were conducted.The two main recommendations are:Recommendation 1: In patients with an elevated risk of CSPC (according to prostate-specific antigen [PSA] levels and/or nomograms) who are biopsy-naïve: mpMRI followed by targeted biopsy (biopsy directed at cancer-suspicious foci detected with mpMRI) should not be considered the standard of care; data from future research studies are essential and should receive high-impact trial funding to determine the value of mpMRI in this clinical context.Recommendation 2:In patients who had a prior negative TRUS-guided systematic biopsy and demonstrate an increasing risk of having CSPC since prior biopsy (e.g., continued rise in PSA and/or change in findings from digital rectal examination): mpMRI followed by targeted biopsy may be considered to help in detecting more CSPC patients compared with repeated TRUS-guided systematic biopsy.

scholarly journals Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/cognitive fusion biopsy: Comparing standard and targeted prostate biopsy with final prostatectomy histology

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
James Ryan ◽  
Mark P. Broe ◽  
Diarmaid Moran ◽  
David Mulvin ◽  
Eric Heffernan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Prostate Biopsy ◽  
Targeted Biopsy ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Mri Findings ◽  
Final Histology ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Mri ◽  
Targeted Biopsies

Introduction: The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with targeted biopsies of the prostate improves the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Recent studies have shown that targeted prostate biopsies also more accurately predict final histopathology after radical prostatectomy (RP). There are three broad techniques for performing MRI-targeted prostate biopsy: cognitive MRI/ultrasound (US) fusion, software MRI/US fusion, and in-bore MRI-guided. Current practices recommend that a standard systematic 12-core prostate biopsy be performed, as well as targeted biopsies in patients with positive MRI findings. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of histological grading of cognitive MRI/US fusion prostate biopsy by comparing the histology from the targeted biopsy specimens (TB), standard systematic specimens (SB), and the combination of both (CB) specimens with the final histological grade from subsequent prostatectomy. Methods: A retrospective, single-center review of 115 patients who underwent standard systematic and cognitive MRI/US-targeted biopsy of the prostate before undergoing a RP between 2016 and 2019 was performed. MRI findings, biopsy, final histology International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grades, and patient demographics were collected. Cochran’s Q test and McNemar test were used to compare the differences in upgrading, downgrading, and concordance between each biopsy group. Results: The concordance between SB, TB, and CB biopsy were 28.7%, 49.6%, and 50.4%, respectively. There was no significant difference in concordance between TB and CB. Patients were more likely to be downgraded on the final histology when comparing CB with TB alone (26.1% vs. 16.5%, p<0.05). In cases where an ISUP grade 1 cancer was diagnosed on TB (n=24), there was a 62.5% chance that the final histology would be upgraded. In the same sample, when combined with a SB, the risk of upgrading on final histology reduced to 37.5%. Conclusions: Although grading concordance between TB and CB were similar, the concomitant use of a SB significantly reduced the rate of upgrading in the final RP histopathology. CB may result in better decision-making regarding treatment options and also have implications for intraoperative planning.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document