» Articles » PMID: 30779829

MRI-TRUS Fusion Guided Prostate Biopsy - Initial Experience and Assessment of the Role of Contralateral Lobe Systematic Biopsy

Overview
Journal Med Ultrason
Specialty Radiology
Date 2019 Feb 20
PMID 30779829
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Aims: To present our initial experience and results of MRI-TRUS fusion guided prostate biopsy and assess the role of contralateral lobe systematic biopsy.

Material And Method: A number of 119 patients with clinical or biochemical suspicion for prostate cancer (PCa) were included. All patients harbored at least one PIRADS score ≥ 3 lesion and underwent MRI-TRUS fusion guided biopsy, as well as a concurrent systematic biopsy. The biopsy was performed by the same operator, using a rigidregistration software system.

Results: The mean age of the patients was 62.2 years. The mean pre-biopsy PSA was 9.15 ng/dl. The diagnosis rate of MRI-TRUS fusion guided biopsy was 47% for overall PCa and 29.4% for clinically significant (cs) PCa. A higher PIRADS score was significantly associated with the presence of overall and csPCa. MRI-TRUS fusion guided biopsy had a higher percentage of positive biopsy cores (51% vs 29%), higher likelihood of csPCa (OR 5.36, p=0.008) and upgrading (14.8%) in comparison with systematic biopsy but missed 6.7% csPCa. The contralateral lobe systematic biopsy could have been avoided without losing the PCa diagnosis all patients with PIRADS score 5, both in initial and repeat biopsy setting. Anterior and transitional lesions were more likely to be diagnosed only by targeted cores.

Conclusion: MRI-TRUS guided prostate biopsy improves the detection of PCa, but systematic biopsy is still essential. In selected cases (PIRADS 5), contralateral lobe systematic biopsy can safely be avoided. Pre-biopsy mpMRI might reduce the number of biopsy sessions in patients with anterior and transitional lesions.

Citing Articles

Agonists, Antagonists and Receptors of Somatostatin: Pathophysiological and Therapeutical Implications in Neoplasias.

Periferakis A, Tsigas G, Periferakis A, Tone C, Hemes D, Periferakis K Curr Issues Mol Biol. 2024; 46(9):9721-9759.

PMID: 39329930 PMC: 11430067. DOI: 10.3390/cimb46090578.


A PSMA PET/CT-based risk model for prediction of concordance between targeted biopsy and combined biopsy in detecting prostate cancer.

An C, Qiu X, Liu B, Song X, Yang Y, Shu J World J Urol. 2024; 42(1):285.

PMID: 38695883 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-024-04947-w.


A novel biopsy scheme for prostate cancer: targeted and regional systematic biopsy.

He Y, Fan Y, Song H, Shen Q, Ruan M, Chen Y BMC Urol. 2024; 24(1):85.

PMID: 38614971 PMC: 11015685. DOI: 10.1186/s12894-024-01461-4.


Diagnostic Performance of a Magnetic Resonance Imaging-directed Targeted plus Regional Biopsy Approach in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Hagens M, Fernandez Salamanca M, Padhani A, van Leeuwen P, van der Poel H, Schoots I Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022; 40:95-103.

PMID: 35540708 PMC: 9079161. DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.04.001.


Analyzing the learning curves of a novice and an experienced urologist for transrectal magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy.

Cata E, Van Praet C, Andras I, Kadula P, Ognean R, Buzoianu M Transl Androl Urol. 2021; 10(5):1956-1965.

PMID: 34159076 PMC: 8185669. DOI: 10.21037/tau-21-8.