Cargando…

Magnetic Resonance Imaging–targeted Prostate Biopsy Compared with Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Patients with Suspected Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND: It remains uncertain whether transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided systematic biopsies can be omitted and rely solely on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging–targeted biopsies (MRI-TBx) in biopsy-naïve men suspected of prostate cancer (PCa). OBJECTIVE: To compare PCa detection in bi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Alkema, Nicolette G., Hoogeveen, Sebastiaan F.J.S., Cauberg, Evelyne C.C., Witte, Lambertus P.W., van 't Veer-ten Kate, Miranda, de Boer, Erwin, Hoogland, Marije A.M., Blanker, Marco H., Boomsma, Martijn F., Steffens, Martijn G.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9520499/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36185584
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2022.08.005
_version_ 1784799638495166464
author Alkema, Nicolette G.
Hoogeveen, Sebastiaan F.J.S.
Cauberg, Evelyne C.C.
Witte, Lambertus P.W.
van 't Veer-ten Kate, Miranda
de Boer, Erwin
Hoogland, Marije A.M.
Blanker, Marco H.
Boomsma, Martijn F.
Steffens, Martijn G.
author_facet Alkema, Nicolette G.
Hoogeveen, Sebastiaan F.J.S.
Cauberg, Evelyne C.C.
Witte, Lambertus P.W.
van 't Veer-ten Kate, Miranda
de Boer, Erwin
Hoogland, Marije A.M.
Blanker, Marco H.
Boomsma, Martijn F.
Steffens, Martijn G.
author_sort Alkema, Nicolette G.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: It remains uncertain whether transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided systematic biopsies can be omitted and rely solely on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging–targeted biopsies (MRI-TBx) in biopsy-naïve men suspected of prostate cancer (PCa). OBJECTIVE: To compare PCa detection in biopsy-naïve men between systematic biopsy and MRI-TBx. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective cohort study was conducted in a Dutch teaching hospital. Consecutive patients with suspected PCa, no history of biopsy, and no clinical suspicion of metastasis underwent both TRUS-guided systematic biopsies and MRI-TBx by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-ultrasound fusion, including sham biopsies in case of negative mpMRI. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Clinically significant PCa (csPCa), defined as group ≥2 on the International Society of Urological Pathology grading, was detected. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The overall prevalence of csPCa, irrespective of biopsy technique, was 37.4% (132/353) in our population. MRI-TBx were performed in 263/353 (74.5%) patients with suspicious mpMRI (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] ≥3). The detection rates for csPCa were 39.5% for MRI-TBx and 42.9% for systematic biopsies. The added values, defined as the additional percentages of patients with csPCa detected by adding one biopsy technique, were 8.7% for the systematic biopsies and 5.3% for MRI-TBx. In patients with nonsuspicious mpMRI, five cases (6%) of csPCa were found by systematic biopsies. CONCLUSIONS: This study in biopsy-naïve patients suspected for PCa showed that systematic biopsies have added value to MRI-TBx alone in patients with mpMRI PI-RADS >2. PATIENT SUMMARY: We studied magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided prostate biopsy for diagnosing prostate cancer and compared it with the standard method of prostate biopsy. Standard systematic biopsies cannot be omitted in patients with suspicious MRI, as they add to the detection of significant prostate cancer.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9520499
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95204992022-09-30 Magnetic Resonance Imaging–targeted Prostate Biopsy Compared with Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Patients with Suspected Prostate Cancer Alkema, Nicolette G. Hoogeveen, Sebastiaan F.J.S. Cauberg, Evelyne C.C. Witte, Lambertus P.W. van 't Veer-ten Kate, Miranda de Boer, Erwin Hoogland, Marije A.M. Blanker, Marco H. Boomsma, Martijn F. Steffens, Martijn G. Eur Urol Open Sci Prostate Cancer BACKGROUND: It remains uncertain whether transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided systematic biopsies can be omitted and rely solely on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging–targeted biopsies (MRI-TBx) in biopsy-naïve men suspected of prostate cancer (PCa). OBJECTIVE: To compare PCa detection in biopsy-naïve men between systematic biopsy and MRI-TBx. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective cohort study was conducted in a Dutch teaching hospital. Consecutive patients with suspected PCa, no history of biopsy, and no clinical suspicion of metastasis underwent both TRUS-guided systematic biopsies and MRI-TBx by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-ultrasound fusion, including sham biopsies in case of negative mpMRI. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Clinically significant PCa (csPCa), defined as group ≥2 on the International Society of Urological Pathology grading, was detected. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The overall prevalence of csPCa, irrespective of biopsy technique, was 37.4% (132/353) in our population. MRI-TBx were performed in 263/353 (74.5%) patients with suspicious mpMRI (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] ≥3). The detection rates for csPCa were 39.5% for MRI-TBx and 42.9% for systematic biopsies. The added values, defined as the additional percentages of patients with csPCa detected by adding one biopsy technique, were 8.7% for the systematic biopsies and 5.3% for MRI-TBx. In patients with nonsuspicious mpMRI, five cases (6%) of csPCa were found by systematic biopsies. CONCLUSIONS: This study in biopsy-naïve patients suspected for PCa showed that systematic biopsies have added value to MRI-TBx alone in patients with mpMRI PI-RADS >2. PATIENT SUMMARY: We studied magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided prostate biopsy for diagnosing prostate cancer and compared it with the standard method of prostate biopsy. Standard systematic biopsies cannot be omitted in patients with suspicious MRI, as they add to the detection of significant prostate cancer. Elsevier 2022-09-02 /pmc/articles/PMC9520499/ /pubmed/36185584 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2022.08.005 Text en © 2022 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Prostate Cancer
Alkema, Nicolette G.
Hoogeveen, Sebastiaan F.J.S.
Cauberg, Evelyne C.C.
Witte, Lambertus P.W.
van 't Veer-ten Kate, Miranda
de Boer, Erwin
Hoogland, Marije A.M.
Blanker, Marco H.
Boomsma, Martijn F.
Steffens, Martijn G.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging–targeted Prostate Biopsy Compared with Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Patients with Suspected Prostate Cancer
title Magnetic Resonance Imaging–targeted Prostate Biopsy Compared with Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Patients with Suspected Prostate Cancer
title_full Magnetic Resonance Imaging–targeted Prostate Biopsy Compared with Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Patients with Suspected Prostate Cancer
title_fullStr Magnetic Resonance Imaging–targeted Prostate Biopsy Compared with Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Patients with Suspected Prostate Cancer
title_full_unstemmed Magnetic Resonance Imaging–targeted Prostate Biopsy Compared with Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Patients with Suspected Prostate Cancer
title_short Magnetic Resonance Imaging–targeted Prostate Biopsy Compared with Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Patients with Suspected Prostate Cancer
title_sort magnetic resonance imaging–targeted prostate biopsy compared with systematic prostate biopsy in biopsy-naïve patients with suspected prostate cancer
topic Prostate Cancer
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9520499/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36185584
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2022.08.005
work_keys_str_mv AT alkemanicoletteg magneticresonanceimagingtargetedprostatebiopsycomparedwithsystematicprostatebiopsyinbiopsynaivepatientswithsuspectedprostatecancer
AT hoogeveensebastiaanfjs magneticresonanceimagingtargetedprostatebiopsycomparedwithsystematicprostatebiopsyinbiopsynaivepatientswithsuspectedprostatecancer
AT caubergevelynecc magneticresonanceimagingtargetedprostatebiopsycomparedwithsystematicprostatebiopsyinbiopsynaivepatientswithsuspectedprostatecancer
AT wittelambertuspw magneticresonanceimagingtargetedprostatebiopsycomparedwithsystematicprostatebiopsyinbiopsynaivepatientswithsuspectedprostatecancer
AT vantveertenkatemiranda magneticresonanceimagingtargetedprostatebiopsycomparedwithsystematicprostatebiopsyinbiopsynaivepatientswithsuspectedprostatecancer
AT deboererwin magneticresonanceimagingtargetedprostatebiopsycomparedwithsystematicprostatebiopsyinbiopsynaivepatientswithsuspectedprostatecancer
AT hooglandmarijeam magneticresonanceimagingtargetedprostatebiopsycomparedwithsystematicprostatebiopsyinbiopsynaivepatientswithsuspectedprostatecancer
AT blankermarcoh magneticresonanceimagingtargetedprostatebiopsycomparedwithsystematicprostatebiopsyinbiopsynaivepatientswithsuspectedprostatecancer
AT boomsmamartijnf magneticresonanceimagingtargetedprostatebiopsycomparedwithsystematicprostatebiopsyinbiopsynaivepatientswithsuspectedprostatecancer
AT steffensmartijng magneticresonanceimagingtargetedprostatebiopsycomparedwithsystematicprostatebiopsyinbiopsynaivepatientswithsuspectedprostatecancer