scholarly journals Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection with various prostate sampling schemes based on different csPCa definitions

BMC Urology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fei Wang ◽  
Tong Chen ◽  
Meng Wang ◽  
Hanbing Chen ◽  
Caishan Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Concomitant Increase ◽  
First Line ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Sampling Schemes ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Mri ◽  
Biopsy Method

Abstract Background Combining targeted biopsy (TB) with systematic biopsy (SB) is currently recommended as the first-line biopsy method by the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines in patients diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) with an abnormal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The combined SB and TB indeed detected an additional number of patients with clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa); however, it did so at the expense of a concomitant increase in biopsy cores. Our study aimed to evaluate if ipsilateral SB (ipsi-SB) + TB or contralateral SB (contra-SB) + TB could achieve almost equal csPCa detection rates as SB + TB using fewer cores based on a different csPCa definition. Methods Patients with at least one positive prostate lesion were prospectively diagnosed by MRI. The combination of TB and SB was conducted in all patients. We compared the csPCa detection rates of the following four hypothetical biopsy sampling schemes with those of SB + TB: SB, TB, ipsi-SB + TB, and contra-SB + TB. Results The study enrolled 279 men. The median core of SB, TB, ipsi-SB + TB, and contra-SB + TB was 10, 2, 7 and 7, respectively (P < 0.001). ipsi-SB + TB detected significantly more patients with csPCa than contra-SB + TB based on the EAU guidelines (P = 0.042). They were almost equal on the basis of the Epstein criteria (P = 1.000). Compared with SB + TB, each remaining method detected significantly fewer patients with csPCa regardless of the definition (P < 0.001) except ipsi-SB + TB on the grounds of D1 (P = 0.066). Ten additional subjects were identified with a higher Gleason score (GS) on contra-SB + TB, and only one was considered as significantly upgraded (GS = 6 on ipsi-SB + TB to a GS of 8 on contra-SB + TB). Conclusions Ipsi-SB + TB could acquire an almost equivalent csPCa detection value to SB + TB using significantly fewer cores when csPCa was defined according to the EAU guidelines. Given that there was only one significantly upgrading patient on contra-SB, our results suggested that contra-SB could be avoided.

scholarly journals Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Detection with Various Prostate Sampling Schemes Based on Different csPCa Definitions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fei Wang ◽  
Tong Chen ◽  
Meng Wang ◽  
Hanbing Chen ◽  
Caishan Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Detection ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
First Line ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Sampling Schemes ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Mri ◽  
Biopsy Method

Abstract Background Combining targeted biopsy (TB) with systematic biopsy (SB) is currently recommended as the first-line biopsy method by the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines in patients diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) with an abnormal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The combined SB and TB indeed detected an additional number of patients with clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa); however, it did so at the expense of a concomitant increase in biopsy cores. Our study aimed to evaluate if ipsilateral SB (ipsi-SB) + TB or contralateral SB (contra-SB) + TB could achieve almost equal csPCa detection rates as SB + TB using fewer cores based on a different csPCa definition.Methods Patients with at least one positive prostate lesion were prospectively diagnosed by MRI. The combination of TB and SB was conducted in all patients. We compared the csPCa detection rates of the following four hypothetical biopsy sampling schemes with those of SB + TB: SB, TB, ipsi-SB + TB, and contra-SB + TB. Results The study enrolled 279 men. The median core of SB, TB, ipsi-SB + TB, and contra-SB + TB was 10, 2, 7 and 7, respectively; they all differed significantly from SB + TB (P < 0.001). ipsi-SB + TB detected significantly more patients with csPCa than contra-SB + TB based on the EAU guidelines (P = 0.042). ipsi-SB + TB and contra-SB + TB detected almost equal number of csPCa on the basis of the Epstein criteria (P = 1.000). Compared with SB + TB, each remaining method detected significantly fewer patients with csPCa regardless of the definition (P < 0.001) except ipsi-SB + TB, which achieved an almost equivalent csPCa detection rate to that of SB + TB on the grounds of D1 (P = 0.066).Conclusions ipsi-SB + TB could detect significantly more patients with csPCa than contra-SB + TB and acquire an almost equivalent csPCa detection rate to that of SB + TB using significantly fewer cores when csPCa was defined as International Society for Urological Pathology (ISUP) 2 or higher.

scholarly journals Prediction Medicine: Biomarkers, Risk Calculators and Magnetic Resonance Imaging as Risk Stratification Tools in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (7) ◽  
pp. 1637 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniël Osses ◽  
Monique Roobol ◽  
Ivo Schoots
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Diagnostic Strategies ◽  
Novel Biomarkers ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Mri ◽  
Prostate Health

This review discusses the most recent evidence for currently available risk stratification tools in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), and evaluates diagnostic strategies that combine these tools. Novel blood biomarkers, such as the Prostate Health Index (PHI) and 4Kscore, show similar ability to predict csPCa. Prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) is a urinary biomarker that has inferior prediction of csPCa compared to PHI, but may be combined with other markers like TMPRSS2-ERG to improve its performance. Original risk calculators (RCs) have the advantage of incorporating easy to retrieve clinical variables and being freely accessible as a web tool/mobile application. RCs perform similarly well as most novel biomarkers. New promising risk models including novel (genetic) markers are the SelectMDx and Stockholm-3 model (S3M). Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has evolved as an appealing tool in the diagnostic arsenal with even stratifying abilities, including in the initial biopsy setting. Merging biomarkers, RCs and MRI results in higher performances than their use as standalone tests. In the current era of prostate MRI, the way forward seems to be multivariable risk assessment based on blood and clinical parameters, potentially extended with information from urine samples, as a triaging test for the selection of candidates for MRI and biopsy.

scholarly journals Usefulness of MRI targeted prostate biopsy for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in men with low prostate-specific antigen levels

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Seokhwan Bang ◽  
Jiwoong Yu ◽  
Jae Hoon Chung ◽  
Wan Song ◽  
Minyong Kang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Multivariate Analyses ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Targeted Biopsy ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Clinically Significant

AbstractWe aimed to evaluate the detection rates of prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) using magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy (MRI-TBx) in men with low prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels (2.5–4.0 ng/mL). Clinicopathologic data of 5502 men with PSA levels of 2.5–10.0 ng/mL who underwent transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-Bx) or MRI-TBx were reviewed. Participants were divided into four groups: LP-T [low PSA (2.5–4.0 ng/mL) and TRUS-Bx, n = 2018], LP-M (low PSA and MRI-TBx, n = 186), HP-T [high PSA (4.0–10.0 ng/mL) and TRUS-Bx, n = 2953], and HP-M (high PSA and MRI-TBx, n = 345). The detection rates of PCa and csPCa between groups were compared, and association of biopsy modality with detection of PCa and csPCa in men with low PSA levels were analyzed. The detection rates of PCa (20.0% vs. 38.2%; P < 0.001) and csPCa (11.5% vs. 32.3%; P < 0.001) were higher in the LP-M group than in the LP-T group. Conversely, there were no significant differences in the detection rates of PCa (38.2% vs. 43.2%; P = 0.263) and csPCa (32.3% vs. 39.4%; P = 0.103) between the LP-M and HP-M groups. Multivariate analyses revealed that using MRI-TBx could predict the detection of csPCa (odds ratio 2.872; 95% confidence interval 1.996‒4.132; P < 0.001) in men with low PSA levels. In summary, performing MRI-TBx in men with low PSA levels significantly improved the detection rates of PCa and csPCa as much as that in men with high PSA levels.

scholarly journals Assessment of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-fusion prostate biopsy with concurrent standard systematic ultrasound-guided biopsy among men requiring repeat biopsy

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Sun ◽  
Andrew Fast ◽  
Iain Kirkpatrick ◽  
Patrick Cho ◽  
Jeffery Saranchuk
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Biopsies ◽  
Secondary Objective ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Mri ◽  
High Degree

Introduction: The role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-fusion biopsy (FB) remains unclear in men with prior negative prostate biopsies. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of FB with concurrent systematic biopsy (SB) in patients requiring repeat prostate biopsies. Methods: Patients with previous negative prostate biopsies requiring repeat biopsies were included. Those without suspicious lesions (≥Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] 3) on MRI were excluded. All patients underwent FB followed by SB. The primary outcome was the sensitivity for clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥7). The secondary objective was identification of potential predictive factors of biopsy performance. Results: A total of 53 patients were included; 41 (77%) patients were found to have clinically significant prostate cancer. FB had a higher detection rate of significant cancer compared to SB (85% vs. 76%, respectively, p=0.20) and lower diagnosis of indolent (Gleason score 3+3=6) cancer (10% vs. 27%, respectively, p=0.05). FB alone missed six (15%) clinically significant cancers, compared to 10 (24%) with SB. SB performance was significantly impaired in patients with anterior lesions and high prostate volumes (p<0.05). There was high degree of pathological discordance between the two approaches, with concordance seen in only 34% of patients. Conclusions: In patients with prior negative biopsies and ongoing suspicion for prostate cancer, a combined approach of FB with SB is needed for optimal detection and risk classification of clinically significant disease. Anterior tumors and large prostates were significant predictors of poor SB performance and an MRI-fusion alone approach in these settings could be considered.

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 Evaluation of the Ginsburg Scheme: Where Is Significant Prostate Cancer Missed?

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (10) ◽  
pp. 2502
Author(s):  
August Sigle ◽  
Cordula A. Jilg ◽  
Timur H. Kuru ◽  
Nadine Binder ◽  
Jakob Michaelis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Cancer Detection ◽  
Logistic Regression Analysis ◽  
Anterior Region ◽  
Targeted Biopsy ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Systematic Biopsy

Background: Systematic biopsy (SB) according to the Ginsburg scheme (GBS) is widely used to complement MRI-targeted biopsy (MR-TB) for optimizing the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (sPCa). Knowledge of the GBS’s blind sectors where sPCa is missed is crucial to improve biopsy strategies. Methods: We analyzed cancer detection rates in 1084 patients that underwent MR-TB and SB. Cancerous lesions that were missed or underestimated by GBS were re-localized onto a prostate map encompassing Ginsburg sectors and blind-sectors (anterior, central, basodorsal and basoventral). Logistic regression analysis (LRA) and prostatic configuration analysis were applied to identify predictors for missing sPCa with the GBS. Results: GBS missed sPCa in 39 patients (39/1084, 3.6%). In 27 cases (27/39, 69.2%), sPCa was missed within a blind sector, with 17/39 lesions localized in the anterior region (43.6%). Neither LRA nor prostatic configuration analysis identified predictors for missing sPCa with the GBS. Conclusions: This is the first study to analyze the distribution of sPCa missed by the GBS. GBS misses sPCa in few men only, with the majority localized in the anterior region. Adding blind sectors to GBS defined a new sector map of the prostate suited for reporting histopathological biopsy results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document