Detecting Prostate Cancer A Prospective Comparison of Systematic Prostate Biopsy With Targeted Biopsy Guided by Fused MRI and Transrectal Ultrasound

被引:15
|
作者
Brock, Marko [1 ]
von Bodman, Christian [1 ]
Palisaar, Jueri [1 ]
Becker, Wolfgang [2 ]
Martin-Seidel, Philipp [2 ]
Noldus, Joachim [1 ]
机构
[1] Ruhr Univ Bochum, Dept Urol, Marien Hosp Herne, D-44627 Herne, Germany
[2] Radiol Gemeinschaftpraxis, Herne, Germany
来源
DEUTSCHES ARZTEBLATT INTERNATIONAL | 2015年 / 112卷 / 37期
关键词
REAL-TIME ELASTOGRAPHY; RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; SATURATION BIOPSY; FUSION BIOPSY; ULTRASONOGRAPHY; POPULATION; GUIDELINES; SPECIMENS; SERIES;
D O I
10.3238/arztebl.2015.0605
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: When prostate cancer is suspected, the prostate gland is biopsied with the aid of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS). The sensitivity of prostatic biopsy is about 50%. The fusion of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data with TRUS enables the targeted biopsy of suspicious areas. We studied whether this improves the detection of prostate cancer. Methods: 168 men with suspected prostate cancer underwent prostate MRI after a previous negative biopsy. Suspicious lesions were assessed with the classification of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System and biopsied in targeted fashion with the aid of fused MRI and TRUS. At the same sitting, a systematic biopsy with at least 12 biopsy cores was performed. Results: Prostate cancer was detected in 71 patients (42.3%; 95% CI, 35.05-49.82). The detection rate of fusion-assisted targeted biopsy was 19% (95% CI, 13.83-25.65), compared to 37.5% (95% CI, 30.54-45.02) with systematic biopsy. Clinically significant cancer was more commonly revealed by targeted biopsy (84.4%; 95% CI, 68.25-93.14) than by systematic biopsy (65.1%; 95% CI, 52.75-75.67). In 7 patients with normal MRI findings, cancer was detected by systematic biopsy alone. Compared to systematic biopsy, targeted biopsy had a higher overall detection rate (16.5% vs. 6.3%), a higher rate of infiltration per core (30% vs. 10%), and a higher rate of detection of poorly differentiated carcinoma (18.5% vs. 3%). Patients with negative biopsies did not undergo any further observation. Conclusion: MRI/TRUS fusion-assisted targeted biopsy improves the detection rate of prostate cancer after a previous negative biopsy. Targeted biopsy is more likely to reveal clinically significant cancer than systematic biopsy; nevertheless, systematic biopsy should still be performed, even if the MRI findings are negative.
引用
收藏
页码:605 / U13
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Comparison of patient experience after transperineal template prostate biopsy with prior transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy
    Bhatt, N. R.
    Breen, K.
    Haroon, U.
    Akram, M.
    Flood, H.
    Giri, S. K.
    IRISH JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2017, 186 : S132 - S132
  • [32] Prospective Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guided In-bore Prostate Biopsy versus Systematic Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Prostate Biopsy in Biopsy Naive Men with Elevated Prostate Specific Antigen
    Quentin, Michael
    Blondin, Dirk
    Arsov, Christian
    Schimmoeller, Lars
    Hiester, Andreas
    Godehardt, Erhard
    Albers, Peter
    Antoch, Gerald
    Rabenalt, Robert
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2014, 192 (05): : 1374 - 1379
  • [33] A Prospective Study on the Efficacy of Cognitive Targeted Transrectal Ultrasound Prostate Biopsy in Diagnosing Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer
    Thangarasu, Mathisekaran
    Jayaprakash, Sanjay Prakash
    Selvaraj, Nivash
    Bafna, Sandeep
    Paul, Rajesh
    Mahesh, Chandranathan
    Jain, Nitesh
    Balakrishnan, Arunkumar
    Sivaraman, Ananthakrishnan
    RESEARCH AND REPORTS IN UROLOGY, 2021, 13 : 207 - 213
  • [34] Current status of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer
    Raja, J
    Ramachandran, N
    Munneke, G
    Patel, U
    CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2006, 61 (02) : 142 - 153
  • [35] Comparison between Ultrasound Guided Transperineal and Transrectal Prostate Biopsy: A Prospective, Randomized and Controlled Trial
    Le-Hang Guo
    Rong Wu
    Hui-Xiong Xu
    Jun-Mei Xu
    Jian Wu
    Shuai Wang
    Xiao-Wan Bo
    Bo-Ji Liu
    Scientific Reports, 5
  • [36] Biological MRI-guided transrectal prostate biopsy
    Grubb, RL
    Susil, R
    Krieger, A
    Guion, P
    Ullman, KL
    Metzger, G
    Smith, SL
    Singh, AK
    Linehan, WM
    Camphausen, K
    Coleman, CN
    Atalar, E
    Choyke, P
    Ménard, C
    Coleman, J
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2005, 173 (04): : 364 - 364
  • [37] ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF TRANSRECTAL ULTRASOUND GUIDED PROSTATE BIOPSY
    Leapman, Michael
    Thiel, Cassandra
    Gordon, Ilyssa
    Nolte, Adam
    Perecman, Aaron
    Overcash, Michael
    Sherman, Jodi
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2022, 207 (05): : E483 - E484
  • [38] Comparison between Ultrasound Guided Transperineal and Transrectal Prostate Biopsy: A Prospective, Randomized, and Controlled Trial
    Guo, Le-Hang
    Wu, Rong
    Xu, Hui-Xiong
    Xu, Jun-Mei
    Wu, Jian
    Wang, Shuai
    Bo, Xiao-Wan
    Liu, Bo-Ji
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2015, 5
  • [39] The future perspectives in transrectal prostate ultrasound guided biopsy
    Hwang, Sung Il
    Lee, Hak Jong
    PROSTATE INTERNATIONAL, 2014, 2 (04) : 153 - 160
  • [40] Angiogenesis assessment in transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy
    Dordevic, G.
    Bembic, M.
    Bozic, K.
    Oguic, R.
    Mustac, E.
    VIRCHOWS ARCHIV, 2019, 475 : S171 - S171