Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of the type of ultrasound probe on prostate cancer detection rate and characterization in patients undergoing MRI-targeted prostate biopsies using cognitive fusion

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the impact of ultrasound probe (end fire vs. side fire) during MRI-targeted prostate biopsy using cognitive fusion.

Methods

Inclusion criteria were as follows: consecutive patients undergoing prostate biopsies after multiparametric MRI; no PSA above 10 ng/ml; no clinical bulking disease; MRI areas suspicious for malignancy. From January 2011 to December 2012, 91 patients were included. A standard 10 TRUS-guided biopsy protocol plus 2 targeted biopsies at any MRI lesion was used. Patient’s characteristics, MRI findings, and pathology evaluations were compared between the two groups.

Results

Mean patient age and PSA were 63 years and 5.95 ng/ml, respectively. The median number of MRI lesions was 2, and the mean volume of the index lesion was 0.64 cc. The overall PCa detection rate was 58.2 %. The MRI scoring system was significantly predictive for PCa detection and aggressiveness (p < 0.001). There was a not statistically significant trend toward greater PCa detection rate (+23 %) in the end-fire cohort (p = 0.235). The PCa detection rate is significantly improved by 1.7-fold in case of MRI score 4–5 lesion as compared to MRI score 3 lesion (p = 0.031) when using the end-fire probe. Conversely, the MRI score does not significantly influence the detection rate in the side-fire group (p = 0.250). The improvement in the PCa detection rate by the end-fire probe was predominantly reported in anterior and of apical peripheral MRI lesions.

Conclusion

In case of high MRI score lesions, the PCa detection rate is significantly improved when using end-firing, particularly in case of anterior and apical peripheral lesions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason M, Matveev V, European Association of Urology et al (2011) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 59:61–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Park SJ, Miyake H, Hara I, Eto H (2003) Predictors of prostate cancer on repeat transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic prostate biopsy. Int J Urol 10:68–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Paul R, Korzinek C, Necknig U, Niesel T, Alschibaja M, Leyh H et al (2004) Influence of transrectal ultrasound probe on prostate cancer detection in transrectal ultrasound-guided sextant biopsy of prostate. Urology 64:532–536

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ching CB, Moussa AS, Li J, Lane BR, Zippe C, Jones JS (2009) Does transrectal ultrasound probe configuration really matter? End fire versus side fire probe prostate cancer detection rates. J Urol 181:2077–2082

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Raber M, Scattoni V, Gallina A, Freschi M, De Almeyda EP, Girolamo VD et al (2012) Does the transrectal ultrasound probe influence prostate cancer detection in patients undergoing an extended prostate biopsy scheme? Results of a large retrospective study. BJU Int 109:672–677

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rom M, Pycha A, Wiunig C, Reissigl A, Waldert M, Klatte T et al (2012) Prospective randomized multicenter study comparing prostate cancer detection rates of end-fire and side-fire transrectal ultrasound probe configuration. Urology 80:15–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ching CB, Zaytoun O, Moussa AS, Li J, Avallone A, Jones JS (2012) Type of transrectal ultrasonography probe influences prostate cancer detection rates on repeat prostate biopsy. BJU Int 110:46–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Marks L, Young S, Natarajan S (2013) MRI-ultrasound fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsy. Curr Opin Urol 23:43–50

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Haffner J, Lemaitre L, Puech P, Haber GP, Leroy X, Jones JS et al (2011) Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. BJU Int 108:171–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Moore CM, Robertson NL, Arsanious N, Middleton T, Villers A, Klotz L et al (2013) Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. Eur Urol 63:125–140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, Barentsz JO, Carey B, Futterer JJ et al (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 59:477–494

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, European Society of Urogenital Radiology et al (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22:746–757

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Villers A, Lemaitre L, Haffner J, Puech P (2009) Current status of MRI for the diagnosis, staging and prognosis of prostate cancer: implications for focal therapy and active surveillance. Curr Opin Urol 19:274–282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bastian PJ, Mangold LA, Epstein JI, Partin AW (2004) Characteristics of insignificant clinical T1c prostate tumors. A contemporary analysis. Cancer 101:2001–2005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ukimura O, Coleman JA, de la Taille A, Emberton M, Epstein JI, Freedland SJ et al (2013) Contemporary role of systematic prostate biopsies: indications, techniques, and implications for patient care. Eur Urol 63:214–230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ploussard G, Nicolaiew N, Marchand C, Terry S, Vacherot F, Vordos D et al (2012) Prospective evaluation of an extended 21-core biopsy scheme as initial prostate cancer diagnostic strategy. Eur Urol. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.049

  17. Zaytoun OM, Moussa AS, Gao T, Fareed K, Jones JS (2011) Office based transrectal saturation biopsy improves prostate cancer detection compared to extended biopsy in the repeat biopsy population. J Urol 186:850–854

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Caso JR, Mouraviev V, Tsivian M, Polascik TJ, Moul JW (2010) Prostate cancer: an evolving paradigm. J Endourol 24:805–809

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Kantoff PW, Carroll PR (2007) Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment. J Urol 178:14–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S, Nelen V, ERSPC Investigators et al (2009) Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 360:1320–1328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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 189:493–499

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Puech P, Rouvière 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 268:461–469

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Pavilion E-941, 3755 Chemin de la Cote Sainte Catherine, Montreal, QC, H3T 1E2, Canada

    Guillaume Ploussard, Samuel Aronson, Vincent Pelsser, Mark Levental, Maurice Anidjar & Franck Bladou

Authors
  1. Guillaume Ploussard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Samuel Aronson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vincent Pelsser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mark Levental
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maurice Anidjar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Franck Bladou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guillaume Ploussard.

Additional information

Guillaume Ploussard is a recipient of a grant from the Association Française d’Urologie.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ploussard, G., Aronson, S., Pelsser, V. et al. Impact of the type of ultrasound probe on prostate cancer detection rate and characterization in patients undergoing MRI-targeted prostate biopsies using cognitive fusion. World J Urol 32, 977–983 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1186-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1186-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation