scholarly journals Comparison of conventional transrectal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and micro-ultrasound for visualizing prostate cancer in an active surveillance population: A feasibility study

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregg Eure ◽  
Daryl Fanney ◽  
Jefferson Lin ◽  
Brian Wodlinger ◽  
Sangeet Ghai
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Real Time ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Biopsy Procedure ◽  
Conventional Ultrasound ◽  
Clinically Significant

Introduction: Active surveillance monitoring of prostate cancer is unique in that most patients have low-grade disease that is not well-visualized by any common imaging technique. High-resolution (29 MHz) micro-ultrasound is a new, real-time modality that has been demonstrated to be sensitive to significant prostate cancer and effective for biopsy targeting. This study compares micro-ultrasound imaging with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and conventional ultrasound for visualizing prostate cancer in active surveillance. Methods: Nine patients on active surveillance were imaged with multiparametric (mp) MRI prior to biopsy. During the biopsy procedure, imaging and target identification was first performed using conventional ultrasound, then using micro-ultrasound. The mpMRI report was then unblinded and used to determine cognitive fusion targets. Using micro-ultrasound, biopsy samples were taken from targets in each modality, plus 12 systematic samples. Results: mpMRI and micro-ultrasound both demonstrated superior sensitivity to Gleason sum 7 or higher cancer compared to conventional ultrasound (p=0.02 McNemar’s test). Micro-ultrasound detected 89% of clinically significant cancer, compared to 56% for mpMRI. Conclusions: Micro-ultrasound may provide similar sensitivity to clinically significant prostate cancer as mpMRI and visualize all significant mpMRI targets. Unlike mpMRI, micro-ultrasound is performed in the office, in real-time during the biopsy procedure, and so is expected to maintain the cost-effectiveness of conventional ultrasound. Larger studies are needed before these results may be applied in a clinical setting.

Latest Evidence on the Role of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Active Surveillance for Insignificant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (7) ◽  
pp. 925-930 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Cantiello ◽  
Stefano Manno ◽  
Giorgio I. Russo ◽  
Sebastiano Cimino ◽  
Salvatore Privitera ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Clinically Significant

Objective: Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) has become a very useful tool in the management of PCa. Particularly, there is a great interest in using mpMRI for men on Active Surveillance (AS) for low risk PCa. The aim of this systematic review was to critically review the latest literature concerning the role of mpMRI in this clinical setting, underlying current strengths and weakness. Evidence Acquisition: A comprehensive literature research for English-language original and review articles was carried out using the National Center for Biotechnology Information PubMed database with the aim to identify studies pertaining to mpMRI for AS in low risk PCa patients. The following search terms were used: active surveillance, prostate cancer and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Evidence Synthesis: Data from 28 recent original studies and reviews were reviewed. We only considered studies on the use of mpMRI in selecting AS patients and during AS follow-up, in order to solve two important questions: -Can mpMRI have a role in improving the detection of clinically significant disease, better selecting AS patients? -Can mpMRI identify the progression of disease and, consequently, be used during AS follow-up? Conclusions: mpMRI is useful to better select the ideal candidates to AS and to monitor them during follow-up. However, despite many advantages, there are yet important limitations to detect all clinically significant PCa and to better define mpMRI-radiological progression during AS. Further larger prospective studies are needed to definitively solve these important problems.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document