Single center results of magnetic resonance imaging ultrasound guided fusion prostate biopsy obtained patients

Year 2021, Volume: 16 Issue: 2, 140 - 147, 29.06.2021

Sercan Yilmaz , Halil Çağrı Aybal , Hakan Özdemir Eymen Gazel , Mehmet Yılmaz , Engin Kaya , Serdar Yalçın , Ali Oner Mehmet Yorubulut Lütfi Tunç

https://doi.org/10.33719/yud.2021;16-2-850577

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to evaluate magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound guided fusion prostate biopsy (MRI- US FPBx) results from a single center and compare with current literature.

Material and Methods: Between January 2016 and July 2019, MRI-US FPBx pathological and imaging results of 358 men were retrospectively analyzed. PI-RADS scores were determined as 3, 4 and 5 in 222 (62%), 107 (29.8%) and 29 (8.1%) patients, respectively. Totally 454 lesions were underwent MRI-US FPBx. 303 (66.7%) lesions were scored as PI-RADS 3, 120 (26.4%) lesions were scored as PI-RADS 4 and 31 (6.8%) lesions were scored as PI-RADS 5. 315 (69.3%) of lesions were in peripheral zone, 26 (5.7%) were in central zone, 111 (24.4%) were in transitional zone and 2 of them were in anterior fibromuscular stroma.

Results: Overall prostate cancer detection rate was 36.3%. Concerning detection rates, MRI-US FPBx alone and transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx) alone were 27.6% and 26.5%, respectively. Cancer detection rate only through MRI-US FPBx PIRADS-3 and PI-RADS 4&5 were 6.9% and 20.6%, respectively. Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) rates were evaluated and csPCa to overall prostate cancer (PCa) rates for TRUS-Bx, MRI-US FPBx and combined techniques were 16.8%, 35.4% and 39.2%, respectively. Results of 11 patients were evaluated as benign.

Conclusion: MRI-US FPBx significantly increases success rate of prostate biopsy procedure. Regarding current MRI technology, it is not appropriate to consider MRI-US FPBx as a stand-alone biopsy option without concomitant with TRUS-Bx.

Keywords

prostate cancer , biopsy , MRI , fusion

Manyetik rezonans görüntüleme-ultrason füzyon prostat biyopsisi tek merkez sonuçları

Abstract

Amaç: Çalışmamızda tek merkeze ait manyetik rezonans görüntüleme-ultrason füzyon prostat biyopsisi (MRI-US FPBx ) sonuçlarını değerlendirmek ve güncel literatürle karşılaştırmak istedik.

Gereç ve Yöntemler:: Ocak 2016 ile Temmuz 2019 arasında 358 erkeğin MRI-US FPBx sonuçları retrospektif olarak analiz edildi. PI-RADS skorları 222 (% 62), 107 (% 29.8) ve 29 (% 8.1) hastada sırasıyla 3, 4 ve 5 olarak tespit edildi. Toplam 454 lezyona MRI-US FPBx uygulandı. 303 (% 66,7) lezyon PI-RADS 3, 120 (% 26,4) lezyon PI-RADS 4 ve 31 (% 6,8) lezyon PI-RADS 5 olarak skorlandı. Lezyonların 315'i (% 69,3) periferik zonda, 26'sı (% 5,7) santral zonda, 111'i (% 24,4) geçiş zonu ve 2'si anterior fibromüsküler stromada idi.

Bulgular: Genel prostat kanseri (PCa) tespit oranı% 36.3 idi. Tek başına MRI-US FPBx ve tek başına transrektal ultrasonografi eşliğinde prostat biyopsisi (TRUS-Bx) kanser saptama oranları sırasıyla % 27.6 ve% 26.5 idi. PI-RADS-3 ve PI-RADS 4 & 5 için MRI-US FPBx'e özgü kanser tespit oranı sırasıyla % 6,9 ve% 20,6 idi. Klinik olarak önemli prostat kanseri (csPCa) oranları değerlendirildi ve TRUS-Bx, MRI-US FPBx ve kombine teknikler için csPCa ve PCa oranları sırasıyla % 16.8, % 35.4 ve % 39.2 idi. 11 hastanın biyopsi sonuçları benigndi.

Sonuç: MRI-US FPBx , prostat biyopsi prosedürünün başarı oranını önemli ölçüde artırır. Ancak mevcut MRI teknolojisine göre, MRI-US FPBx'i TRUS-Bx olmaksızın bağımsız bir biyopsi seçeneği olarak düşünmek uygun olmadığı görüşündeyiz.

Keywords

prostat kanseri , biyopsi , MRI , füzyon

References

• 1. Hernandez-Aragues I, Baniandres-Rodriguez O. Basal cell carcinoma of the scrotum. Actas Urol Esp. 2016; 40(9):592-593.
• 2. Hoffman RM. Clinical practice. Screening for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011; 365(21):2013-2019.
• 3. Quon JS, Moosavi B, Khanna M, et al. False positive and false negative diagnoses of prostate cancer at multi-parametric prostate MRI in active surveillance. Insights Imaging. 2015; 6(4):449-463.
• 4. Bonekamp D, Jacobs MA, El-Khouli R, Stoianovici D, Macura KJ. Advancements in MR imaging of the prostate: from diagnosis to interventions. Radiographics. 2011; 31(3):677-703.
• 5. Siddiqui MM, George AK, Rubin R, et al. Efficiency of Prostate Cancer Diagnosis by MR/Ultrasound Fusion- Guided Biopsy vs Standard Extended-Sextant Biopsy for MR-Visible Lesions. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016; 108(9).
• 6. Defontaines J, Salomon L, Champy C, et al. [Prostate cancer diagnostic by saturation randomized biopsy versus rigid targeted biopsy]. Prog Urol. 2017; 27(16):1023- 1030.
• 7. Demirtaş A, Sönmez G, Tombul Ş T, Demirtaş T, Akgün H. Comparison of the Upgrading Rates of International Society of Urological Pathology Grades and Tumor Laterality in Patients Undergoing Standard 12-Core Prostate Biopsy versus Fusion Prostate Biopsy for Prostate Cancer. Urol Int. 2019; 103(3):256-261.
• 8. Merrett C, Mannas M, Black PC, Zargar H. Magnet Before the Needle Commentary on: MRI-targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-cancer Diagnosis (PRECISION Trial). Urology. 2018; 118:1-2.
• 9. Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH. Diagnostic Performance of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2017; 72(2):177-88.
• 10. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016; 69(1):16-40.
• 11. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016; 40(2):244-252.
• 12. Benelli A, Vaccaro C, Guzzo S, et al. The role of MRI/ TRUS fusion biopsy in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Ther Adv Urol. 2020; 12:1756287220916613.
• 13. Stabile A, Giganti F, Rosenkrantz AB, et al. Multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis: current status and future directions. Nat Rev Urol. 2020; 17(1):41-61.
• 14. Gayet M, van der Aa A, Beerlage HP, et al. The value of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography (MRI/US)-fusion biopsy platforms in prostate cancer detection: a systematic review. BJU Int. 2016; 117:392- 400.
• 15. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017; 389:815-22.
• 16. Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU - ESTRO - ESUR - SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer 2020. European Association of Urology Guidelines 2020 Edition. Paper Presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam 2020. Arnhem, The Netherlands: European Association of Urology Guidelines Office; 2020.
• 17. Fourcade A, Payrard C, Tissot V, et al. The combination of targeted and systematic prostate biopsies is the best protocol for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Scand J Urol. 2018; 52(3):174-179.
• 18. Porpiglia F, Manfredi M, Mele F, et al. Diagnostic Pathway with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Standard Pathway: Results from a Randomized Prospective Study in Biopsy-naïve Patients with Suspected Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol. 2017; 72(2):282- 288.
• 19. Costa DN, Pedrosa I, Donato F, Jr., Roehrborn CG, Rofsky NM. MR Imaging-Transrectal US Fusion for Targeted Prostate Biopsies: Implications for Diagnosis and Clinical Management. Radiographics. 2015; 35(3):696- 708.
• 20. Valerio M, Donaldson I, Emberton M, et al. Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsy: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol. 2015; 68(1):8-19.
• 21. Pinto PA, Chung PH, Rastinehad AR, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol. 2011; 186(4):1281- 1285.
• 22. Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, et al. A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial. Eur Urol. 2014; 66(2):343-351.
• 23. Stabile A, Dell’Oglio P, Gandaglia G, et al. Not All Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsies Are Equal: The Impact of the Type of Approach and Operator Expertise on the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2018; 1(2):120-128.
• 24. Cash H, Maxeiner A, Stephan C, et al. The detection of significant prostate cancer is correlated with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) in MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. World J Urol. 2016; 34(4):525-532.
• 25. Murphy IG, NiMhurchu E, Gibney RG, McMahon CJ. MRI-directed cognitive fusion-guided biopsy of the anterior prostate tumors. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2017; 23(2):87-93.
• 26. Sönmez G, Tombul Ş T, İmamoğlu H, et al. Multiparametric MRI fusion-guided prostate biopsy in biopsy naive patients: Preliminary results from 80 patients. Turk J Urol. 2019; 45:196-201.
• 27. Truong M, Frye TP. Magnetic resonance imaging detection of prostate cancer in men with previous negative prostate biopsy. Transl Androl Urol. 2017; 6(3):424-31.
• 28. Mendhiratta N, Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, et al. Prebiopsy MRI and MRI-ultrasound Fusion-targeted Prostate Biopsy in Men With Previous Negative Biopsies: Impact on Repeat Biopsy Strategies. Urology. 2015; 86(6):1192-1198.
• 29. Kenigsberg AP, Renson A, Rosenkrantz AB, et al. Optimizing the Number of Cores Targeted During Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Fusion Target Biopsy. Eur Urol Oncol. 2018; 1:418-425.
• 30. Sonmez G, Demirtas T, Tombul ST, Ozturk F, Demirtas A. What is the ideal number of biopsy cores per lesion in targeted prostate biopsy? Prostate Int. 2020; 8(3):112- 115.