Effect of Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-guided Biopsy on Radiation Treatment Recommendations

被引:6
|
作者
Reed, Aaron [1 ]
Valle, Luca F. [1 ]
Shankavaram, Uma [1 ]
Krauze, Andra [1 ]
Kaushal, Aradhana [1 ]
Schott, Erica [1 ]
Cooley-Zgela, Theresa [1 ]
Wood, Bradford [2 ]
Pinto, Peter [3 ]
Choyke, Peter [4 ]
Turkbey, Baris [4 ]
Citrin, Deborah E. [1 ]
机构
[1] NCI, Radiat Oncol Branch, Ctr Canc Res, Bldg 10, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
[2] NCI, Ctr Intervent Oncol, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
[3] NCI, Urol Oncol Branch, Ctr Canc Res, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
[4] NCI, Mol Imaging Program, Ctr Canc Res, NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
IMAGING TARGETED BIOPSY; CANCER; MRI; TRANSPERINEAL; INTERMEDIATE; RADIOTHERAPY; DECISIONS;
D O I
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.12.016
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Purpose: Targeted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy (MRI-Bx) has recently been compared with the standard of care extended sextant ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (SOC-Bx), with the former associated with an increased rate of detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. The present study sought to determine the influence of MRI-Bx on radiation therapy and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) recommendations. Methods and Materials: All patients who had received radiation treatment and had undergone SOC-Bx and MRI-Bx at our institution were included. Using the clinical T stage, pretreatment prostate-specific antigen, and Gleason score, patients were categorized into National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk groups and radiation treatment or ADT recommendations assigned. Intensification of the recommended treatment after multiparametric MRI, SOC-Bx, and MRI-Bx was evaluated. Results: From January 2008 to January 2016, 73 patients received radiation therapy at our institution after undergoing a simultaneous SOC-Bx and MRI-Bx (n=47 with previous SOC-Bx). Repeat SOC-Bx and MRI-Bx resulted in frequent upgrading compared with previous SOC-Bx (Gleason score 7, 6.7% vs 44.6%; P<.001; Gleason score 8-10, 2.1% vs 38%; P<.01). MRI-Bx increased the proportion of patients classified as very high risk from 24.7% to 41.1% (P=.027). Compared with SOC-Bx alone, including the MRI-Bx findings resulted in a greater percentage of pathologically positive cores (mean 37% vs 44%). Incorporation of multiparametric MRI and MRI-Bx results increased the recommended use and duration of ADT (duration increased in 28 of 73 patients and ADT was added for 8 of 73 patients). Conclusions: In patients referred for radiation treatment, MRI-Bx resulted in an increase in the percentage of positive cores, Gleason score, and risk grouping. The benefit of treatment intensification in accordance with the MRI-Bx findings is unknown. Published by Elsevier Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:947 / 951
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Re: Comparison of MR/Ultrasound Fusion-guided Biopsy with Ultrasound-guided Biopsy for the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer
    Gershman, Boris
    Karnes, R. Jeffrey
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2015, 68 (03) : 536 - 537
  • [42] Re: Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion Guided Prostate Biopsy Improves Cancer Detection Following Transrectal Ultrasound Biopsy and Correlates With Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging
    Robertson, Nicola L.
    Moore, Caroline M.
    Emberton, Mark
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2012, 187 (04): : 1511 - 1512
  • [43] The economic effect of using magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis
    Hutchinson, Ryan C.
    Costa, Daniel N.
    Lotan, Yair
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2016, 34 (07) : 296 - 302
  • [44] Importance of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-guided fusion biopsy for the detection and monitoring of prostate cancer
    Ganzer, R.
    Brummeisl, W.
    Siokou, F. S.
    Scheck, R.
    Franz, T.
    Ho-Thi, P.
    Mangold, A.
    UROLOGE, 2019, 58 (12): : 1499 - 1508
  • [45] MR/TRANSPERINEAL ULTRASOUND FUSION-GUIDED PROSTATE BIOPSY IN THE PATIENT WITHOUT ANUS
    Corona, Lauren E.
    Wang, Robert S.
    Davenport, Matthew
    Curci, Nicole
    Rastinehad, Ardeshir R.
    Kastner, Christof
    George, Arvin K.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2018, 199 (04): : E1240 - E1240
  • [46] Initial clinical experience with real-time transrectal ultrasonography-magnetic resonance imaging fusion-guided prostate biopsy
    Singh, Anurag K.
    Kruecker, Jochen
    Xu, Sheng
    Glossop, Neil
    Guion, Peter
    Ullman, Karen
    Choyke, Peter L.
    Wood, Bradford J.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2008, 101 (07) : 841 - 845
  • [47] Our initial experiences with mpMRI-ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy
    Huttl Andras Bela
    Korda David Adam
    Lenard, M. Zsuzsanna
    Szendroi Attila
    Rudas Gabor
    Kalina Ildiko
    Fejer Bence
    Szabo Jozsef
    Takacs Szabolcs
    Nyirady Peter
    ORVOSI HETILAP, 2020, 161 (52) : 2188 - 2194
  • [48] MR/Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Biopsy in Prostate Cancer What Is the Evidentiary Standard?
    Schwartz, Lawrence H.
    Basch, Ethan
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2015, 313 (04): : 367 - 368
  • [49] MULTIPARAMETRIC MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING AND MRI/ULTRASOUND FUSION-GUIDED BIOPSY STRATIFY PATIENTS AT RISK FOR EXTRACAPSULAR EXTENSION AT RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY
    Raskolnikov, Dima
    George, Arvin
    Siddiqui, M. Minhaj
    Rais-Bahrami, Soroush
    Turkbey, Baris
    Okoro, Chinonyerem
    Rothwax, Jason
    Shakir, Nabeel
    Walton-Diaz, Annerleim
    Su, Daniel
    Stamatakis, Lambros
    Merino, Maria
    Wood, Bradford
    Choyke, Peter
    Pinto, Peter
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2014, 191 (04): : E394 - E394
  • [50] Comparison of Elastic and Rigid Registration during Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Prostate Biopsy: A Multi-Operator Phantom Study EDITORIAL COMMENT
    Moore, Caroline M.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2018, 200 (05): : 1121 - 1121