The detection of significant prostate cancer is correlated with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) in MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy

被引:87
|
作者
Cash, Hannes [1 ]
Maxeiner, Andreas [1 ]
Stephan, Carsten [1 ]
Fischer, Thomas [2 ]
Durmus, Tahir [2 ]
Holzmann, Josephine [1 ]
Asbach, Patrick [2 ]
Haas, Matthias [2 ]
Hinz, Stefan [1 ]
Neymeyer, Joerg [1 ]
Miller, Kurt [1 ]
Guenzel, Karsten [1 ]
Kempkensteffen, Carsten [1 ]
机构
[1] Charite, Dept Urol, Hindenburgdamm 30, D-12203 Berlin, Germany
[2] Charite, Dept Radiol, Hindenburgdamm 30, D-12203 Berlin, Germany
关键词
PI-RADS; Prostate biopsy; Targeted biopsy; Real-time MRI/ultrasound fusion biopsy; Prostate cancer/diagnosis; MULTIPARAMETRIC MAGNETIC-RESONANCE; GUIDED BIOPSY; TARGETED BIOPSY; IDENTIFICATION; GUIDELINES; DIAGNOSIS; PROTOCOL; 12-CORE; ANTIGEN; MRI;
D O I
10.1007/s00345-015-1671-8
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
To evaluate the performance of real-time MRI/ultrasound (MRI/US) fusion-guided targeted biopsy (TB) in men with primary and repeat biopsies and correlate the prostate cancer detection rate (CDR) with the PI-RADS score. Analysis included 408 consecutive men with primary and prior negative biopsies who underwent TB and 10-core random biopsy (RB) between January 2012 and January 2015. TB was performed with a real-time MRI/US fusion platform with sensor-based registration. Clinically significant PCa was defined as Gleason score (GS) a parts per thousand yen7 or GS 6 with maximal cancer core length a parts per thousand yen4 mm for TB and according to Epstein criteria for RB. The overall CDR was 56 % (227/408). The CDR for primary biopsy was 74 % (60/81) and 57 % (67/117), 49 % (62/126), 45 % (38/84) for patients with 1, 2 and a parts per thousand yen3 prior negative biopsies. CDRs correlated with PI-RADS 2/3/4/5 were 16 % (5/32), 26 % (29/113), 62 % (94/152) and 89 % (99/111), respectively. The rates of significant tumors in relation to PI-RADS 2/3/4/5 were 60 % (3/5), 66 % (19/29), 74 % (70/94), 95 % (94/99). In 139 (61 %) cases with radical prostatectomy (RP), the rates of a parts per thousand yenpT3 tumors in correlation with PI-RADS 4 and 5 were 20 % (11/56) and 49 % (32/65). PI-RADS constituted the strongest predictor of significant PCa detection (p < 0.007). Real-time MRI/US fusion-guided TB combined with RB improved PCa detection in patients with primary and repeat biopsies. The CDR was strongly correlated with a rising PI-RADS score, values of 4 and 5 increasing the detection of clinically significant tumors and leading to a higher histological stage after RP.
引用
收藏
页码:525 / 532
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] The detection of significant prostate cancer is correlated with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) in MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy
    Hannes Cash
    Andreas Maxeiner
    Carsten Stephan
    Thomas Fischer
    Tahir Durmus
    Josephine Holzmann
    Patrick Asbach
    Matthias Haas
    Stefan Hinz
    Jörg Neymeyer
    Kurt Miller
    Karsten Günzel
    Carsten Kempkensteffen
    World Journal of Urology, 2016, 34 : 525 - 532
  • [2] Interreader agreement with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) Version 2.1 to improve the detection rate of prostate cancer in MRI/TRUS software fusion prostate biopsy
    Kim, J.
    Song, W. H.
    Lee, D. D.
    Lee, S. S.
    Nam, J. K.
    Ryu, H. S.
    Kim, T. U.
    Park, S. W.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2022, 81 : S722 - S723
  • [3] Prospective evaluation of multiparametric MRI of prostate and the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) version 2 for prostate cancer detection
    Lim, L. Y.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2019, 26 : 22 - 23
  • [4] A NEW SCORING SYSTEM USING PROSTATE IMAGING REPORTING AND DATA SYSTEM (PI-RADS) TO DETECT SIGNIFICANT CANCER FOR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING-TARGETED PROSTATE BIOPSY
    Kataoka, Madoka
    Ito, Masaya
    Nakanishi, Yasukazu
    Takemura, Kosuke
    Suzuki, Hiroaki
    Fuse, Honoka
    Iida, Noriyuki
    Tobisu, Kenichi
    Koga, Fumitaka
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2020, 203 : E854 - E854
  • [5] Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) scoring in a transperineal prostate biopsy setting
    Grey, Alistair D. R.
    Chana, Manik S.
    Popert, Rick
    Wolfe, Konrad
    Liyanage, Sidath H.
    Acher, Peter L.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2015, 115 (05) : 728 - 735
  • [6] The correlation between PI-RADS score and the detection of prostate cancer using MRI-ultrasound fusion guided transperineal prostate biopsy
    Lipana, K. A.
    Albano, G.
    Arcinas, R.
    Bisnar, C.
    Bolong, D.
    Dy, J.
    Lasala, A.
    Lim, D.
    Maclalag, M.
    Panganiban, J.
    Sy, J.
    Letran, J.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2019, 26 : 18 - 18
  • [7] Accuracy of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS v2) in the detection of prostate cancer (PCa).
    Gill, David Michael
    Bishoff, Jay
    Lynch, Steven C.
    Foy, Bridget
    Evans, Jaden D.
    Haslem, Derrick S.
    Yeatman, Timothy Joseph
    McLean, Logan
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2020, 38 (15)
  • [8] Differentiation of prostatitis and prostate cancer using the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS)
    Meier-Schroers, Michael
    Kukuk, Guido
    Wolter, Karsten
    Decker, Georges
    Fischer, Stefan
    Marx, Christian
    Traeber, Frank
    Sprinkart, Alois Martin
    Block, Wolfgang
    Schild, Hans Heinz
    Willinek, Winfried
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2016, 85 (07) : 1304 - 1311
  • [9] Standardized Reporting of Prostate MRI: Comparison of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) Version 1 and Version 2
    Tewes, Susanne
    Mokov, Nikolaj
    Hartung, Dagmar
    Schick, Volker
    Peters, Inga
    Schedl, Peter
    Pertschy, Stefanie
    Wacker, Frank
    Voshage, Goetz
    Hueper, Katja
    PLOS ONE, 2016, 11 (09):
  • [10] Predictive value of PI-RADS classification in MRI-directed transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy
    NiMhurchu, E.
    O'Kelly, F.
    Murphy, I. G.
    Lavelle, L. P.
    Collins, C. D.
    Lennon, G.
    Galvin, D.
    Mulvin, D.
    Quinlan, D.
    McMahon, C. J.
    CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2016, 71 (04) : 375 - 380