Advertisement

Journal für Urologie und Urogynäkologie/Schweiz

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 121–127 | Cite as

Ein neuer Goldstandard der Prostatakarzinomdiagnostik?

Bedeutung der bildgebungsgestützten gezielten Biopsien
  • Stefan Behrens
  • Mykyta Kachanov
  • Lars Budäus
Originalien
  • 8 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Aktuelle Studien zeigen einen Nutzen der MRT in Erst- und Rebiopsien für die Prostatakrebsdiagnostik. Eindrucksvoll wurden in mehreren Vergleichsstudien eine erhöhte Detektionsrate von klinisch signifikanten sowie anterior gelegenen Prostatakarzinomen, geringere Nebenwirkungen für den Patienten nach der Biopsie und eine niedrigere Diagnoserate von „low risk“ Prostatakarzinomen nachgewiesen. Die Qualitätsverbesserung der diagnostischen Optionen wurde nicht nur durch den Fortschritt der Technik, sondern auch die Einführung von PI-RADS v2 für die Befundstandardisierung der mpMRT-Bilder maßgeblich beeinflusst.

Dieser Artikel fasst den aktuellen Forschungsstand der PCa-Diagnostik zusammen und beschäftigt sich mit den Funktionsweisen, Opportunitäten sowie Limitationen neuer Möglichkeiten im Vergleich zur systematischen Biopsie.

Schlüsselwörter

Prostatakarzinom Gezielte Biopsie MRT Diagnostik PI-RADS Version 2 MRT/US-Fusion 

Abkürzungen

aPCa

„Anterior prostate carcinoma“: anteriores Prostatakarzinom

AS

„Active surveillance“: aktive Überwachung

csPCa

„Clinically significant prostate cancer“: klinisch signifikanter Prostatakrebs

DCE

„Dynamic contrast enhanced“: dynamische Kontrastmittelverstärkung

DWI

„Diffusion-weighted imaging“: diffusionsgewichtete Bildgebung

GS

Gleason-Score

LUTS

„Lower urinary tract symptoms“: Symptome des unteren Harntraktes

mpMRT

Multiparametrische Magnetresonanztomographie

NPV

„Negative predictive value“: negativ prädikativer Wert

PCa

„Prostate carcinoma“: Prostatakarzinom

PI-RADS v2

„Prostate Imaging-Reporting And Data System version 2“

PRIAS

„Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance“

PPV

„Positive predictive value“: positiv prädikativer Wert

ROI

„Region of interest“: Region von Interesse

SB

Systematische Biopsie

T2W

T2-Wichtung

TB

„Targeted biopsy“: gezielte Biopsie

TRUS

Transrektaler Ultraschall

US

Ultraschall

Un nouveau standard de référence dans le diagnostic du cancer de la prostate?

Signification des biopsies ciblées guidées par imagerie

Résumé

Des études récentes révèlent un avantage de l’IRM pour les biopsies diagnostiques initiales et de suivi du cancer prostatique. Différentes études comparatives ont constaté de façon impressionnante un taux accru de détection de carcinomes prostatiques cliniquement significatifs et de carcinomes prostatiques de localisation antérieure, ainsi que de plus faibles effets indésirables chez les patients après la biopsie et un plus faible taux de diagnostic de cancers prostatiques à faible risque. L’amélioration qualitative des options diagnostiques a été influencée non seulement par les progrès techniques, mais aussi par l’introduction du système PI-RADS v2 pour la standardisation de l’interprétation des images d’IRM multiparamétrique.

Cet article résume l’état actuel de la recherche dans le domaine du diagnostic du cancer de la prostate et se penche sur les modes de fonctionnement, opportunités et limitations des nouvelles options par rapport à la biopsie systématique.

Mots-clés

Cancer de la prostate Biopsie ciblée Diagnostic à l’aide de l’IRM PI-RADS version 2 Fusion IRM-échographie 

Notes

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

S. Behrens, M. Kachanov und L. Budäus geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren. Für Bildmaterial oder anderweitige Angaben innerhalb des Manuskripts, über die Patienten zu identifizieren sind, liegt von ihnen und/oder ihren gesetzlichen Vertretern eine schriftliche Einwilligung vor.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J, Rosso S, Coebergh JW, Comber H et al (2013) Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer 49(6):1374–1403PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bell KJ, Del Mar C, Wright G, Dickinson J, Glasziou P (2015) Prevalence of incidental prostate cancer: a systematic review of autopsy studies. Int J Cancer 137(7):1749–1757PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, AWMF (2018) Interdisziplinäre Leitlinie der Qualität S3 zur Früherkennung, Diagnose und Therapie der verschiedenen Stadien des Prostatakarzinoms, Langversion 5.0, AWMF Registernummer: 043/022OL. Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF) (http://www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/leitlinien/prostatakarzinom/ (abgerufen am: 20.08.2018))Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389(10071):815–822PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH et al (2018) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 378(19):1767–1777PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, Barentsz JO, Carey B, Futterer JJ et al (2013) Scoring systems used for the interpretation and reporting of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection, localization, and characterization: could standardization lead to improved utilization of imaging within the diagnostic pathway? J Magn Reson Imaging 37(1):48–58PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging – reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69(1):16–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kuhl CK, Bruhn R, Kramer N, Nebelung S, Heidenreich A, Schrading S (2017) Abbreviated biparametric prostate MR imaging in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen. Radiology 285(2):493–505PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Radtke JP, Boxler S, Kuru TH, Wolf MB, Alt CD, Popeneciu IV et al (2015) Improved detection of anterior fibromuscular stroma and transition zone prostate cancer using biparametric and multiparametric MRI with MRI-targeted biopsy and MRI-US fusion guidance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 18:288PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holm HH, Gammelgaard J (1981) Ultrasonically guided precise needle placement in the prostate and the seminal vesicles. J Urol 125(3):385–387PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA (1989) Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 142(1):71–74 (discussion 4–5)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stamey TA (1995) Making the most out of six systematic sextant biopsies. Urology 45(1):2–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Abdelsayed GA, Danial T, Kaswick JA, Finley DS (2015) Tumors of the anterior prostate: implications for diagnosis and treatment. J Urol 85(6):1224–1228Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Toi A, Neill MG, Lockwood GA, Sweet JM, Tammsalu LA, Fleshner NE (2007) The continuing importance of transrectal ultrasound identification of prostatic lesions. J Urol 177(2):516–520PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moussa AS, Meshref A, Schoenfield L, Masoud A, Abdel-Rahman S, Li J et al (2010) Importance of additional „extreme“ anterior apical needle biopsies in the initial detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 75(5):1034–1039Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scattoni V, Zlotta A, Montironi R, Schulman C, Rigatti P, Montorsi F (2007) Extended and saturation prostatic biopsy in the diagnosis and characterisation of prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol 52(5):1309–1322PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jones JS, Patel A, Schoenfield L, Rabets JC, Zippe CD, Magi-Galluzzi C (2006) Saturation technique does not improve cancer detection as an initial prostate biopsy strategy. J Urol 175(2):485–488PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Xue J, Qin Z, Cai H, Zhang C, Li X, Xu W et al (2017) Comparison between transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy for detection of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Oncotarget 8(14):23322–23336PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, Catto J, Emberton M, Nam R et al (2013) Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 64(6):876–892PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MG (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 68(3):438–450PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Koppie TM, Bianco FJ Jr., Kuroiwa K, Reuter VE, Guillonneau B, Eastham JA et al (2006) The clinical features of anterior prostate cancers. BJU Int 98(6):1167–1171PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bouye S, Potiron E, Puech P, Leroy X, Lemaitre L, Villers A (2009) Transition zone and anterior stromal prostate cancers: zone of origin and intraprostatic patterns of spread at histopathology. Prostate 69(1):105–113PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leyh-Bannurah SR, Kachanov M, Beyersdorff D, Preisser F, Tilki D, Fisch M et al (2018) Anterior localization of prostate cancer suspicious magnetic resonance imaging lesions in patients undergoing initial and repeat biopsy: results from 1,161 patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided targeted biopsies. J Urol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.06.026 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Leyh-Bannurah SR, Karakiewicz PI, Dell’Oglio P, Briganti A, Schiffmann J, Pompe RS et al (2017) Comparison of 11 active surveillance protocols in contemporary European men treated with radical prostatectomy. Clin Genitourin Cancer.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2017.08.005 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, Hooft L, Bosch J, Reitsma HB, Barentsz JO et al (2017) 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 71(4):517–531PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Delongchamps NB, Peyromaure M, Schull A, Beuvon F, Bouazza N, Flam T et al (2013) Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer detection: comparison of random and targeted biopsies. J Urol 189(2):493–499PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Park BK, Park JW, Park SY, Kim CK, Lee HM, Jeon SS et al (2011) Prospective evaluation of 3‑T MRI performed before initial transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with high prostate-specific antigen and no previous biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197(5):W876–W881PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, Stifelman MD, Lepor H, Deng FM et al (2014) 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 66(2):343–351PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Puech P, Rouviere O, Renard-Penna R, Villers A, Devos P, Colombel M 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(2):461–469PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kongnyuy M, George AK, Rastinehad AR, Pinto PA (2016) Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy: review of technology, techniques, and outcomes. Curr Urol Rep 17(4):32PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Krucker J, Xu S, Venkatesan A, Locklin JK, Amalou H, Glossop N et al (2011) Clinical utility of real-time fusion guidance for biopsy and ablation. J Vasc Interv Radiol 22(4):515–524PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Presti JC Jr., O’Dowd GJ, Miller MC, Mattu R, Veltri RW (2003) Extended peripheral zone biopsy schemes increase cancer detection rates and minimize variance in prostate specific antigen and age related cancer rates: results of a community multi-practice study. J Urol 169(1):125–129PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Patel AR, Jones JS, Rabets J, DeOreo G, Zippe CD (2004) Parasagittal biopsies add minimal information in repeat saturation prostate biopsy. J Urol 63(1):87–89Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stewart CS, Leibovich BC, Weaver AL, Lieber MM (2001) Prostate cancer diagnosis using a saturation needle biopsy technique after previous negative sextant biopsies. J Urol 166(1):86–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shida Y, Hakariya T, Takehara K, Onita T, Miyata Y, Sakai H (2016) Comparison between a combined transrectal and transperineal approach and a transrectal approach for prostate rebiopsy. Anticancer Res 36(9):4685–4690PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Abdollah F, Novara G, Briganti A, Scattoni V, Raber M, Roscigno M et al (2011) Trans-rectal versus trans-perineal saturation rebiopsy of the prostate: is there a difference in cancer detection rate? J Urol 77(4):921–925Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Bourke L, Cornford P, De Santis M et al (2018) European Association of Urology: guidelines on prostate cancer 2018. EAU guidelines Edn presented at the EAU Annual Congress Copenhagen 2018. http://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/EAU-ESUR-ESTRO-SIOG-Guidelines-on-Prostate-Cancer-large-text-V2.pdf. Zugegriffen: 20. Aug. 2018Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jansson KF, Akre O, Garmo H, Bill-Axelson A, Adolfsson J, Stattin P et al (2012) Concordance of tumor differentiation among brothers with prostate cancer. Eur Urol 62(4):656–661PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sonn GA, Fan RE, Ghanouni P, Wang NN, Brooks JD, Loening AM et al (2017) Prostate magnetic resonance imaging interpretation varies substantially across radiologists. Eur Urol Focus.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.11.010 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Greer MD, Brown AM, Shih JH, Summers RM, Marko J, Law YM et al (2017) Accuracy and agreement of PIRADSv2 for prostate cancer mpMRI: a multireader study. J Magn Reson Imaging 45(2):579–585PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Volkin D, Turkbey B, Hoang AN, Rais-Bahrami S, Yerram N, Walton-Diaz A et al (2014) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and subsequent MRI/ultrasonography fusion-guided biopsy increase the detection of anteriorly located prostate cancers. BJU Int 114(6b):E43–E49PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Faria R, Soares MO, Spackman E, Ahmed HU, Brown LC, Kaplan R et al (2018) Optimising the diagnosis of prostate cancer in the era of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on the PROstate MR Imaging Study (PROMIS). Eur Urol 73(1):23–30PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Barnett CL, Davenport MS, Montgomery JS, Wei JT, Montie JE, Denton BT (2018) Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging and targeted fusion biopsy for early detection of prostate cancer. BJU Int 122(1):50–58PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Franz T, von Hardenberg J, Blana A, Cash H, Baumunk D, Salomon G et al (2017) MRI/TRUS fusion-guided prostate biopsy: value in the context of focal therapy. Urologe A 56(2):208–216PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    van den Bergh RC, Vasarainen H, van der Poel HG, Vis-Maters JJ, Rietbergen JB, Pickles T et al (2010) Short-term outcomes of the prospective multicentre Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance study. BJU Int 105(7):956–962PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kryvenko ON, Carter HB, Trock BJ, Epstein JI (2014) Biopsy criteria for determining appropriateness for active surveillance in the modern era. J Urol 83(4):869–874Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tran GN, Leapman MS, Nguyen HG, Cowan JE, Shinohara K, Westphalen AC et al (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy during prostate cancer active surveillance. Eur Urol 72(2):275–281PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Martini-KlinikUniversitätsklinikum Hamburg EppendorfHamburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations