Advertisement

Uro-News

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 34–37 | Cite as

Biopsiemethode der Wahl

Standardmäßige systematische Biopsie bei MRT-fusionierter Targetbiopsie?

  • Philipp Mandel
  • Felix Preisser
  • Lena Theißen
  • Boris Bodelle
  • Felix Chun
Fortbildung
  • 6 Downloads

Bei Patienten ohne durchgeführte oder mit negativer multiparametrischer Magnetresonanztomografie der Prostata ist die randomisierte Prostatabiopsie die Diagnostik der ersten Wahl. Mit Nachweis einer Targetläsion PI-RADS ≥3 stellt sich jedoch die Frage, ob standardmäßig eine systematische Biopsie im Rahmen der MRT-fusionierten Targetbiopsie durchgeführt werden soll.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Maxeiner A. et al. Primary magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion- guided biopsy of the prostate. BJU International, 2018; 122: 211–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bratan F. et al. Influence of imaging and histological factors on prostate cancer detection and localisation on multiparametric MRI: a prospective study. Eur Radiol. 2013; 23: 2019–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fütterer J.J. et al. Can Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Be Detected with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging? A Systematic Review of the Literature. Eur Urol. 2015; 68: 1045–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ahmed H.U. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017; 389: 815–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Le J.D. et al. Multifocality and Prostate Cancer Detection by Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Correlation with Whole-mount Histopathology. Eur Urol. 2015; 67: 569–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rosenkrantz A.B. et al. Interobserver Reproducibility of the PI-RADS Version 2 Lexicon: A Multicenter Study of Six Experienced Prostate Radiologists. Radiology. 2016; 280: 793–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Muller B.G. et al. Prostate Cancer: Interobserver Agreement and Accuracy with the Revised Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System at Multiparametric MR Imaging. Radiology. 2015; 277: 741–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhao C. et al. The efficiency of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) using PI-RADS Version 2 in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Clin Imaging. 2016; 40: 885–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van Hove A. et al. Comparison of image-guided targeted biopsies versus systematic randomized biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic literature review of well-designed studies. World J Urol. 2014; 32: 847–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Porpiglia 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: 282–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kasivisvanathan V. et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018; 378: 1767–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weinreb J.C. et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016; 69: 16–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Interdisziplinäre Leitlinie der Qualität S3 zur Früherkennung, Diagnose und Therapie der verschiedenen Stadien des Prostatakarzinoms April 2018: Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften e.V. (AWMF), Deutschen Krebsgesellschaft e.V. (DKG) und Deutschen Krebshilfe (DKH). www.awmf.org/leitlinien/ detail/ll/043-022OL.html
  14. 14.
    Mottet N. et al. EAU - ESTRO - ESUR - SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. 2018.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baco, E. 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: 149–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Borkowetz A. et al. Prospective comparison of transperineal magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion biopsy and transrectal systematic biopsy in biopsy-naïve patients. BJU Int. 2018; 121: 53–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wegelin O. et al. Comparing Three Different Techniques for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsies: A Systematic Review of In-bore versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound fusion versus Cognitive Registration. Is There a Preferred Technique? Eur Urol. 2017; 71: 517–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Siddiqui M. et al., Comparison of mr/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA. 2015; 313: 390–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Filson C.P. et al. Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: The role of systematic and targeted biopsies. Cancer. 2016; 122: 884–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sugano Dordaneh S.A. et al. MRI-targeted biopsy: is systematic biopsy obsolete? CJU. 2017; 24: 8876–82Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Loeb S. et al. Systematic Review of Complications of Prostate Biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013; 64: 876–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philipp Mandel
    • 1
  • Felix Preisser
    • 2
  • Lena Theißen
    • 2
  • Boris Bodelle
    • 2
  • Felix Chun
    • 2
  1. 1.Universitätsklinikum FrankfurtFrankfurt am MainDeutschland
  2. 2.

Personalised recommendations