Prediction of pathological outcome at radical prostatectomy for MRI-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy versus standard transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 73-73
Author(s):  
Hans Arora ◽  
Yaw A. Nyame ◽  
Ahmed El-Shafei ◽  
Onder Kara ◽  
Andrei Purysko ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Prostate Biopsy ◽  
Cleveland Clinic ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Fusion Biopsy ◽  
Trus Biopsy ◽  
Prostate Size ◽  
Standard Template

73 Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-ultrasound (US) fusion prostate biopsy has been shown to be able to detect prostate cancer, with the goal of targeting specific lesions. Our objective was to evaluate the ability of this technique to accurately determine the final pathological outcome at the time of radical prostatectomy as compared to standard template 12-core transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent both prostate biopsy and prostatectomy at the Cleveland Clinic. Patients who underwent standard template 12-core TRUS biopsies between January 2005 through December 2013, and MRI-US fusion biopsies from January 2014 through June 2015 were included. Patients who had more than 12 cores taken during TRUS biopsy were excluded. Relevant covariates included patient demographics as well as pre-biopsy PSA and prostate size, which were collected from the electronic medical record. Continuous variables were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and categorical variables were assessed with χ2 test. Results: In total 543 patients were included. Of these, 491 underwent 12-core standard template TRUS biopsy whereas 54 underwent MRI-US fusion biopsy. Between the two groups there were no significant differences in age (median 62 years versus 63 years, p = 0.21), race (17.5% versus 12.3 % African American, p = 0.32), family history (31.5% versus 29.3% positive, p = 0.74), prostate size (47.75g, IQR 39.5-59 versus 42.7g, IQR 37-56, p = 0.08), pre-biopsy PSA (5.2 ng/mL, IQR 4.1-7.6 versus 4.97, IQR 3.24-6.95, p = 0.14). Of the fusion biopsy patients, 14 of 54 (25.9%) were upgraded from biopsy to prostatectomy, whereas 214 of 491 (43.6%) of TRUS biopsy patients were upgraded (p = 0.02). Conclusions: Of men undergoing transrectal biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer, MRI-US fusion techniques have a lower rate of upgrading at final pathology at prostatectomy as compared to standard 12-core TRUS-guided biopsy.

scholarly journals A review of optimal prostate biopsy: indications and techniques

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 175628721987007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Streicher ◽  
Brian Lee Meyerson ◽  
Vidhya Karivedu ◽  
Abhinav Sidana
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Patient Selection ◽  
Prostate Biopsy ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Diagnostic Technique ◽  
Fusion Biopsy ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Software Platforms ◽  
Selection For

Prostate biopsy is the gold standard diagnostic technique for the detection of prostate cancer. Patient selection for prostate biopsy is complex and is influenced by emerging use of prebiopsy imaging. The introduction of the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy has clear advantages over the historical standard of care. There are several biopsy techniques currently utilized with unique advantages and disadvantages. We review and summarize the current body of literature pertaining to when and how a prostate biopsy should be performed. We discuss current recommendations regarding patient selection for biopsy and discuss future directions regarding prebiopsy imaging. We offer a description of the MRI–TRUS fusion biopsy technique and a comparison of many of the currently available fusion software platforms. Articles pertaining to the title were obtained via PubMed index search with relevant keywords supplemented with personal collection of related publications. Prostate biopsy should be considered for patients with gross digital rectal exam (DRE) abnormality, patients with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) greater than 4 ng/ml, and concomitant risk factors for prostate cancer or patients with lesions identified on multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 2 (PI-RADS2) score of 4 or 5. MRI–TRUS fusion biopsy has demonstrated advantages in cancer detection when compared with TRUS-guided biopsy. There are currently several fusion software platforms available with a variety of biopsy approaches. Future efforts should detail the role of prebiopsy imaging as a triage tool for prostate biopsy. Consensus should be sought regarding the preferred modality of fusion biopsy. Additional data describing each fusion software platform would enable a more rigorous comparison of platform sensitivities.

Concordance between MRI fusion versus TRUS prostate biopsy and final pathology at radical prostatectomy: Data from the PURC.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 354-354
Author(s):  
Ruchika Talwar ◽  
Katharine Michel ◽  
Aseem Malhotra ◽  
Claudette Fonshell ◽  
John Danella ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Needle Biopsy ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Concordance Rate ◽  
Fusion Biopsy ◽  
Grade Group ◽  
Final Pathology ◽  
Prostate Needle Biopsy ◽  
Trus Biopsy

354 Background: Studies suggest that MRI-fusion guided biopsies are superior to the transrectal ultrasound guided (TRUS) technique. Herein, we present the Pennsylvania Urologic Regional Collaborative (PURC) experience with MRI fusion biopsy. We aimed to calculate concordance rates between TRUS prostate needle biopsy versus MRI fusion biopsy and final pathology at the time of radical prostatectomy within our cohort. Methods: Within PURC, a prospective quality improvement collaborative of urology practices in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, we identified all men who underwent a TRUS or MRI fusion prostate needle biopsy followed by radical prostatectomy for the treatment of prostate cancer from 2015 to 2018. We analyzed International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group (GG) scoring and calculated the concordance and upgrading rates at the time of biopsy versus final pathology at radical prostatectomy. To assess for differences between our rates, we performed a test of equal proportions and Pearson's chi-squared test (significance = p<0.05). Results: We identified 1,437 men who underwent TRUS (n=1247) or MRI Fusion (n=196) biopsies followed by radical prostatectomy. Overall pathologic grading distribution at time of biopsy was: 35.8% (n=515) Grade Group (GG) 1, 28.5% (n=409) GG 2, 13.3% (n=191) GG 3, 11.5% (n=165) GG 4, and 10.9% (n=157) GG 5. Median number of cores at TRUS biopsy was 12 (IQR: 12,13). Median number of cores at MRI Fusion biopsy was 15 (IQR 13,18). Therefore, we inferred patients who underwent MRI Fusion biopsy also underwent standard TRUS biopsies at that time. On average, exact concordance rate between MRI Fusion biopsy and final pathology was 9.1% higher than concordance rate of TRUS biopsy (44.4% vs 35.3%, 95% CI: 1.6%-16.5%, p < 0.01). The overall rate of upgrading on final pathology for MRI fusion biopsies was 5.7% lower than for TRUS biopsies, but this was not statistically significant (35.2% vs 40.9%, 95% CI: 1.5-13.0%, p=0.06). Conclusions: MRI fusion biopsies demonstrated higher concordance rates with final pathology at the time of radical prostatectomy than TRUS prostate biopsies alone.

11c-choline-PET/CT versus transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy to diagnose locally recurrent prostate cancer following radiation therapy.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 119-119
Author(s):  
A. Heidenreich ◽  
D. A. Pfister ◽  
R. Epplen ◽  
B. Brehmer
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radiation Therapy ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Prostate Biopsy ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Choline Pet ◽  
Pet Ct ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Locally Recurrent

119 Background: Radical salvage prostatectomy (SRP) represents one local secondary treatment option with curative intent in patients failing radiation therapy (RT) for localized prostate cancer (PCA). 11C-PET/CT represents an innovative imaging study to detect systemic spread of prostate cancer. However, there is only limited experience with regard to the sensitivity of C-PET/CT to detect locally recurrent PCA following radiation therapy. The purpose of our study was to analyse the sensitivity of C-PET/CT to diagnose PCA and extra- and intraprostatic extension. Methods: 45 patients with the suspicion of locally recurrent PCA underwent 12-core transrectal ultrasound- guided biopsy of the prostate, C-PET/CT, bonne scan and radical salvage prostatectomy. Findings of the imaging studies were correlated with the pathohistological findings of the prostate biopsy and the radical prostatectomy specimen. All prostatectomy specimens were proceeded according to the Stanford protocol and the number and location of intraprostatic cancer foci > 5mm were correlated with the PE/CT findings. Results: The mean preoperative serum PSA was 7.8 (2–24) ng/ml; the mean biopsy Gleason Score was 5.6 (4–9). Prostate biopsy was positive in 37/45 (82.2%) patients whereas 8/45 (17.8%) had a negative biopsy despite positive PET/CT findings. PET/CT was positive in 45/45 patients. Radical prostatectomy specimens identified locally recurrent PCA in 44/45 (97.8%). One patient turned out to have pT0pN0 disease despite increasing PSA. PET/CT identified 1, 2, and > 2 intraprostatic cancer foci of significant volume in 23 (51.1%), 13 (28.9%) and 9 (20%) patients, respectively. Sensitivity to detect intraprostatic, histologically proven PCA foci is 95.6% which is significantly superior to the biopsy results. There was a high correlation between the PET/CT results and the final histology of the radical prostatectomy specimens. Conclusions: Choline PET/CT is an innovative imaging to identify patients with locally recurrent PCA following radiation therapy. PET/CT is superior to prostate biopsy and we recommend a PET/CT in patients who are candidates for radical salvage prostatectomy. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

scholarly journals OPTIMIZATION OF PRIMARY TRANSRECTAL MULTIFOCAL PROSTATE BIOPSY USING PERFUSION COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 21-26
Author(s):  
N. V. Sosnovskiy ◽  
М. I. Shkolnik ◽  
E. V. Rozengauz ◽  
D. V. Nesterov
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Prostate Biopsy ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Perfusion Computed Tomography ◽  
Trus Biopsy ◽  
Selection Of

Introduction. Primary transrectal multifocal prostate biopsy is the standard method for prostate cancer (PCa) verification, with the detection rate of 53 %. The purpose of the study was to improve findings of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-biopsy) by its optimization due to perfusion computed tomography (PCT).Material and methods.The study included 97 patients with indications for TRUS-biopsy. All patients underwent PCT of the prostate before biopsy. Prostate cancer was detected by PCT in 43 patients. These patients underwent standard primary transrectal multifocal prostate biopsy plus additional targeted punctures from areas of increased blood flow. The results of standard and targeted punctures were compared. The McNemar criterion was used to assess the statistical significance of the differences.Results.There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of PCa detection between standard and targeted punctures (p>0.05). However, statistically significant differences in the detection of PCa of different differentiation grades were found between standard and targeted punctures for PCa with a Gleason score of 8 (4 + 4). The detection rate of PCa with the Gleason score of 8 (4 + 4) was 5 % for standard punctures and 14 % for targeted punctures (p˂0.05). No one statistical method has been used to assess sensitivity and specificity, due to the absence of a «gold» standard (histological examination of the total amount of prostate tissue after radical prostatectomy).Conclusion.The use of primary prostate biopsy optimized with PCT findings does not allow increase in the detection rate of PCa. However, this method improves the verification of PCa with a Gleason score of 8 (4 + 4) that can influence the risk stratification and selection of further therapeutic strategy.

Comparing magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy and systemic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy for whole gland pathology.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 84-84
Author(s):  
Daniel Su ◽  
Arvin George ◽  
Minhaj Siddiqui ◽  
Soroush Rais-Bahrami ◽  
Lambros Stamatakis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Prostate Biopsy ◽  
Core Biopsy ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Fusion Biopsy ◽  
Clinically Significant

84 Background: Historically, pathologic findings from standard 12-core prostate biopsies are upgraded in 25 to 33% of patients after radical prostatectomy (RP). MRI/US fusion prostate biopsy has been shown to upgrade prostate cancer compared to standard 12-core biopsy in 32% of patients. MRI/US fusion biopsy may offer a more accurate representation of whole gland pathology. We evaluate the rate of pathologic upgrade in standard 12-core biopsy and MRI/US fusion biopsy when compared with whole gland pathology from RP. Methods: Patients who underwent random prostate biopsy, fusion biopsy and subsequently RP for prostate cancer from 2012 to 2013 were included. Pathology was reviewed by a single pathologist. The cohort was divided into clinically significant high-grade (Gleason score 4+3 or higher) and clinically insignificant low-grade (Gleason score 3+4 or lower) sub cohorts. Pathological upgrade was defined as any increase in Gleason sum or primary Gleason score. McNemar’s test was used to compare the proportion of patients who were upgraded from random biopsy to RP versus the proportion that were upgraded from fusion biopsy to RP. Results: Sixty eight patients underwent 12-core and fusion prostate biopsy then subsequently RP. Mean prostate-specific antigen was 9.2ng/ml. There are total of 43 patients with clinically insignificant low-grade and 25 patients with clinically significant high-grade. Fusion biopsy upgraded 19 patients (28%) compared to 12-core biopsy, eight of these patients had negative 12-core biopsy. Pathology on the RP specimen upgraded 18 of the 12-core results (26%) compare to only eight fusion biopsy results (11%). (p =0.0095) 14 patients (20%) who had clinically insignificant low-grade disease on 12-core biopsy were upgraded to clinically significant high-grade on RP. Only two patients (3%) with clinically insignificant low-grade from fusion biopsy were upgraded on RP. (p< 0.0005) Conclusions: Prostate cancer detected on MRI/US fusion prostate biopsy has significantly lower rates of pathologic upgrade than standard 12-core biopsy when both were compared to prostatectomy specimens. MRI/US fusion biopsy may represent whole gland pathology more accurately compared to 12-core biopsy.

The effect of urologic oncology fellowship training on type and yield of prostate biopsy.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 135-135
Author(s):  
Molly Elmer DeWitt-Foy ◽  
Ahmed El-Shafei ◽  
Wendy Melissa Coronado ◽  
Robert Abouassaly
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Prostate Biopsy ◽  
Diagnostic Yield ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Cleveland Clinic ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasound ◽  
Complete Information ◽  
Fellowship Training ◽  
Urologic Oncology ◽  
Positive Biopsy

135 Background: Prostate biopsy is a commonly performed procedure done in the evaluation of elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA), abnormal digital rectal exam (DRE), or for patients with a known prostate cancer diagnosis on active surveillance. The diagnostic yield of prostate biopsy is related to patient factors including age and race, but may also be correlated with provider factors, including clinical experience and training. We aim to determine the relationship between urologic oncology fellowship training (UOFT) and years of training with diagnostic yield of prostate biopsy. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of patients who underwent prostate biopsy across the Cleveland Clinic between 2000 and 2018. Biopsies done by urologists with and without UOFT were detailed via descriptive statistics and with appropriate (chi square, Student t) tests. Logistic regression was performed, adjusting for last PSA, age, race, and type of biopsy. Results: A total of 11,255 biopsies performed by 129 urologists had complete information for review. The average patient age at biopsy was 65 years. The mean number of years in practice was 16 with a range from < 1 to 46 (SD 11.26). Of 129 urologists 16 (12.4%) had completed a urology oncology fellowship. Those with UOFT were more likely to use MRI guidance for biopsy (7.73% v 2.89%). Overall, 35.5% of all biopsies were positive for prostate cancer, with a significantly higher rate of positive biopsy for urologists with UOFT (40.7% v 32.43%, OR 1.4, p < 0.0001). Having completed greater than 5 years of clinical practice was correlated with greater odds of positive biopsy (OR 1.170, p < 0.0001), but significance of this association was lost when adjusting for oncology fellowship. UOFT remained a significant predictor of diagnostic yield even when adjusting for most recent PSA, age and race of patient, provider years in practice, and type of biopsy (MRI v transrectal ultrasound). Conclusions: Urologic oncology fellowship training is associated with a higher diagnostic yield on prostate biopsy, and a higher uptake of MRI guided biopsy. Higher rate of positivity on biopsy may be attributable to more nuanced patient selection for biopsy or to biopsy technique.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document