Evolution of repeat prostate biopsy strategies incorporating transperineal and MRI–TRUS fusion techniques
- 380 Downloads
To test the hypothesis that MRI–TRUS fusion technique can increase the detection rate of prostate cancer (PC) in patients with previously negative biopsy.
Patient records of men with persisting suspicion for PC after previous negative biopsy having undergone either extensive transrectal prostate biopsies (MD Anderson protocol; MDA), transperineal saturation (STP) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion transperineal biopsies (MTTP) in three consecutive time intervals were reviewed retrospectively. The respective approach was the standard for the above indication at these episodes. In Cambridge, 70 patients underwent MDA biopsies, 75 STP underwent biopsies and 74 patients underwent MTTP biopsies. In total, 164 MTTP patients with the same indication from Heidelberg were analysed as reference standard. In total, 383 men were included into analysis. Low-grade PC was defined as Gleason score 7 (3 + 4) or lower.
Even though MTTP patients had significantly larger prostates, the overall cancer detection rate for PC was the highest in MTTP (24.2 % MDA, 41.3 % STP, 44.5 % MTTP, p = 0.027, Kruskal–Wallis test). The detection rate for clinically relevant high-grade PC was highest in MTTP; however, this did not reach statistical significance compared with MDA (23.5 % MDA, 12.9 % STP, 27.2 % MTTP, p = 0.25, Fischer’s exact test). Comparing MTTP between Cambridge and Heidelberg, detection rates did not differ significantly (44.5 vs. 48 %, p = 0.58). There was a higher detection rate of high-grade cancer in Heidelberg. (36.3 vs. 27.2 %, p = 0.04).
Patients whom are considered for repeat biopsies may benefit from undergoing MRI-targeted TRUS fusion technique due to higher cancer detection rate of significant PC.
KeywordsTransperineal prostate biopsy MRI-targeted prostate biopsy Prostate cancer
We thank all members and friends of the “Ginsburg Study Group for Enhanced Prostate Diagnostics” for their support during the preparation of this manuscript.
Conflict of interest
- 1.Puech P, Rouviere O, Renard-Penna R et al (2013) Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy–prospective multicenter study. Radiology 268:461–469. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13121501 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Arumainayagam N, Ahmed HU, Moore CM et al (2013) Multiparametric MR imaging for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: a validation cohort study with transperineal template prostate mapping as the reference standard. Radiology 268:761–769. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13120641 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Pokorny MR, De Rooij M, Duncan E et al (2014) 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. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.03.002 PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Nelson AW, Harvey RC, Parker RA et al (2013) Repeat prostate biopsy strategies after initial negative biopsy: meta-regression comparing cancer detection of transperineal, transrectal saturation and MRI guided biopsy. PloS One 8:e57480. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0057480.s002 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Roethke MC, Kuru TH, Schultze S et al (2013) 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. doi: 10.1007/s00330-013-3017-5
- 18.Mowatt G, Scotland G, Boachie C et al (2013) The diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance spectroscopy and enhanced magnetic resonance imaging techniques in aiding the localisation of prostate abnormalities for biopsy: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 17:vii–xix–1–281. doi: 10.3310/hta17200
- 21.Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, Egevad LL (2006) Update on the Gleason grading system for prostate cancer: results of an international consensus conference of urologic pathologists. In: Adv Anat Pathol. pp 57–59Google Scholar
- 24.Porpiglia F, Russo F, Manfredi M et al (2014) The roles of multiparametric MRI, PCA3, and PHI: which is the best predictor of prostate cancer after a negative biopsy? Results of a prospective study. J Urol. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.01.030