Abstract
Introduction: The study aimed to evaluate 3 different modalities of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsies (PBs; 2D-, 3D- and targeted 3D-TRUS with fusion to MRI - T3D). Primary end point was the detection rate of prostate cancer (PC). Secondary end point was the detection rate of insignificant PC according to the Epstein criteria. Patients and Methods: Inclusion of 284 subsequent patients who underwent 2D-, 3D- or T3D PB from 2011 to 2015. All patients having PB for initial PC detection with a serum prostate-specific antigen value ≤20 ng/ml were included. Patients with T4 and/or clinical and/or radiological metastatic disease, so as these under active surveillance were excluded. Results: Patients with T3D PB had a significantly higher detection rate of PC (58 vs. 19% for 2D and 38% for 3D biopsies; p = 0.001), with no difference in Gleason score distribution (p = 0.644), as well as detection rate of low-risk cancers (p = 0.914). Main predictive factor for positive biopsies was the technique used, with respectively a 3- and 8-fold higher detection rate in the 3D- and T3D group. For T3D-PB, there was a significant correlation between radiological cancer suspicion (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Score) and cancer detection rate (p = 0.02). Conclusions: T3D PB should be preferred over 2D PB and 3D PB in patients with suspected PC as it improves the cancer detection rate.
References
1.
Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, et al: EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 2014;65:124-137.
2.
Delongchamps NB, de la Roza G, Chandan V, Jones R, Threatte G, Jumbelic M, et al: Diagnostic accuracy of extended biopsies for the staging of microfocal prostate cancers in autopsy specimen. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2009;12:137-142.
3.
Roehl KA, Antenor JA, Catalona WJ: Serial biopsy results in prostate cancer screening study. J Urol 2002;167:2435-2439.
4.
Wagenlehner FM, van Oostrum E, Tenke P, Tandogdu Z, Çek M, Grabe M, et al: Infective complications after prostate biopsy: outcome of the Global Prevalence Study of Infections in Urology (GPIU) 2010 and 2011, a prospective multinational multicentre prostate biopsy study. Eur Urol 2013;63:521-527.
5.
Bruyere F, Malavaud S, Bertrand P, Decock A, Cariou G, Doublet JD, et al: Prosbiotate: a multicenter, prospective analysis of infectious complications after prostate biopsy. J Urol 2015;193:145-150.
6.
Mozer P, Baumann M, Chevreau G, Moreau-Gaudry A, Bart S, Renard-Penna R, et al: Mapping of transrectal ultrasonographic prostate biopsies: quality control and learning curve assessment by image processing. J Ultrasound Med 2009;28:455-460.
7.
Peltier A, Aoun F, El-Khoury F, Hawaux E, Limani K, Narahari K, et al: 3D versus 2D systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: higher cancer detection rate in clinical practice. Prostate Cancer 2013;2013:783243.
8.
Klein J, De Gorski A, Iselin C: [3D ultrasound guidance for prostate biopsy with MRI-image fusion]. Rev Med Suisse 2013;9:2275-2278.
9.
de Gorski A, Wirth GJ, Iselin CE: 721 The advantages of using 3D guidance for localizing prostate biopsies by endo-rectal route: feasibility and preliminary results. Eur Urol Suppl 2013;12:e721-e722.
10.
Abdi H, Zargar H, Goldenberg SL, Walshe T, Pourmalek F, Eddy C, et al: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer in patients with prior negative biopsy results. Urol Oncol 2015;33:165.e1-e7.
11.
Kim EH, Vemana G, Johnson MH, Vetter JM, Rensing AJ, Strother MC, et al: Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted vs. conventional transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: single-institution, matched cohort comparison. Urol Oncol 2015;33:109.e1-e6.
12.
Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Sciarra A, Ciardi A, Indino EL, Papalia R, et al: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging vs. standard care in men being evaluated for prostate cancer: a randomized study. Urol Oncol 2015;33:17.e1-e7.
13.
Pokorny MR, De Rooij M, Duncan E, Schröder FH, Parkinson R, Barentsz JO, et al: Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent mr-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. Eur Urol 2014;66:22-29.
14.
Quentin M, Blondin D, Arsov C, Schimmöller L, Hiester A, Godehardt E, et al: Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging guided in-bore prostate biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in biopsy naïve men with elevated prostate specific antigen. J Urol 2014;192:1374-1379.
15.
Fiard G, Hohn N, Descotes JL, Rambeaud JJ, Troccaz J, Long JA: Targeted MRI-guided prostate biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer: initial clinical experience with real-time 3-dimensional transrectal ultrasound guidance and magnetic resonance/transrectal ultrasound image fusion. Urology 2013;81:1372-1378.
16.
Rud E, Baco E, Eggesbø HB: MRI and ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy using soft image fusion. Anticancer Res 2012;32:3383-3389.
17.
Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong H, Stamatakis L, Vourganti S, Nix J, et al: Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol 2013;64:713-719.
18.
Delongchamps NB, Peyromaure M, Schull A, Beuvon F, Bouazza N, Flam T, et al: Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer detection: comparison of random and targeted biopsies. J Urol 2013;189:493-499.
19.
Mozer P, Rouprêt M, Le Cossec C, Granger B, Comperat E, de Gorski A, et al: First round of targeted biopsies using magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion compared with conventional transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsies for the diagnosis of localised prostate cancer. BJU Int 2015;115:50-57.
20.
Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George AK, Rothwax J, Shakir N, et al: Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 2015;313:390-397.
21.
Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB: Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994;271:368-374.
22.
Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V, Eggener S, Emberton M, Fütterer JJ, Gill IS, et al: Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an international working group. Eur Urol 2013;64:544-552.
23.
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al: ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22:746-757.
24.
Roethke MC, Kuru TH, Schultze S, Tichy D, Kopp-Schneider A, Fenchel M, et al: Evaluation of the ESUR PI-RADS scoring system for multiparametric MRI of the prostate with targeted MR/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy at 3.0 Tesla. Eur Radiol 2014;24:344-352.
25.
Remzi M, Fong YK, Dobrovits M, Anagnostou T, Seitz C, Waldert M, et al: The Vienna nomogram: validation of a novel biopsy strategy defining the optimal number of cores based on patient age and total prostate volume. J Urol 2005;174(4 pt 1):1256-1260; discussion 1260-1261; author reply 1261.
26.
Krughoff K, Eid K, Phillips J, Stoimenova D, Smith D, O'Donnell C, et al: The accuracy of prostate cancer localization diagnosed on transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy compared to 3-dimensional transperineal approach. Adv Urol 2013;2013:249080.
27.
Durmus T, Reichelt U, Huppertz A, Hamm B, Beyersdorff D, Franiel T: MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate: correlation between the cancer detection rate and the number of previous negative TRUS biopsies. Diagn Interv Radiol 2013;19:411-417.
28.
Baco E, Rud E, Eri LM, Moen G, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A, et al: A randomized controlled trial to assess and compare the outcomes of two-core prostate biopsy guided by fused magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound images and traditional 12-core systematic biopsy. Eur Urol 2016;69:149-156.
29.
Klein J, Benamran DA, Vallee JP, Iselin CE: Histologic confirmation of a biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy by performing 3-dimensional transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy with fusion to magnetic resonance imaging. Urology 2014;84:e17-e18.
30.
Baco E, Ukimura O, Rud E, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A, Aron M, et al: Magnetic resonance imaging-transectal ultrasound image-fusion biopsies accurately characterize the index tumor: correlation with step-sectioned radical prostatectomy specimens in 135 patients. Eur Urol 2015;67:787-794.
31.
Vaché T, Bratan F, Mège-Lechevallier F, Roche S, Rabilloud M, Rouvière O: Characterization of prostate lesions as benign or malignant at multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of three scoring systems in patients treated with radical prostatectomy. Radiology 2014;272:446-455.
32.
Renard-Penna R, Mozer P, Cornud F, Barry-Delongchamps N, Bruguière E, Portalez D, et al: Prostate imaging reporting and data system and likert scoring system: multiparametric MR imaging validation study to screen patients for initial biopsy. Radiology 2015;275:458-468.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
2016
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.
