Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 47 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 22 - 29 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.5152/tud.2020.20238 İndeks Tarihi: 17-06-2022

Effect of lesion diameter and prostate volume on prostate cancer detection rate of magnetic resonance imaging: Transrectalultrasonography-guided fusion biopsies using cognitive targeting

Öz:
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of prostate volume and lesion size on the clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection rates of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsies, performed by a cognitive targeting method for sampling peripheral zone lesions. Material and methods: We retrospectively enrolled 219 consecutive patients, who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with a 3-T scanner and had peripheral zone lesions suspected for prostate cancer. All of these patients underwent combined cognitive targeted biopsy of suspicious lesions and TRUS-guided systematic biopsy. The detection rates of csPCa according to different lesion diameters (<5 mm, 5–9.9 mm, and ≥10 mm) and prostate volumes (<30 mL, 30–49.9 mL, 50–79.9 mL, and ≥80 mL) were calculated per lesion basis. In addition, subgroup analysis of csPCa detection rates was performed according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System scores of lesions. Results: The csPCa detection rates according to lesion diameters <5 mm, 5–9.9 mm, and ≥10 mm were 4%, 9.8%, and 33.1%, respectively, and were significantly lower for lesions <10 mm (p<0.001). The csPCa detection rates were 61.5%, 24.1%, 16.2%, and 6.9%, respectively, for prostate volumes <30 mL, 30–49.9 mL, 50–79.9 mL, and ≥80 mL, and were significantly higher for prostate volumes <30 mL (p<0.001). Conclusions: Clinicians should be very careful when they prefer cognitive targeted prostatic biopsy in patients with periferal zone lesions less than 10 mm and with prostate volumes greater than 30 mL, because of significantly low csPCa detection rates
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • 1. Barrett T, Haider MA. The Emerging Role of MRI in Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance and Ongoing Challenges. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017;208:131-9. [Crossref]
  • 2. Hu Y, Ahmed HU, Carter T, Arumainayagam N, Lecornet E, Barzell W, et al. A biopsy simulation study to assess the accuracy of several transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-biopsy strategies compared with template prostate mapping biopsies in patients who have undergone radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2012;110:812-20. [Crossref]
  • 3. Venderink W, van Luijtelaar A, Bomers JG, van der Leest M, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, Barentsz JO, et al. Results of targeted biopsy in men with magnetic resonance imaging lesions classified equivocal, likely or highly likely to be clinically significant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2018;73:353-60. [Crossref]
  • 4. Baco E, Rud E, Eri LM, Moen G, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A, 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;69:149-56. [Crossref]
  • 5. Baco E, Ukimura O, Rud E, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A, Aron M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-transectal ultrasound imagefusion biopsies accurately characterize the index tumor: correlation with step-sectioned radical prostatectomy specimens in 135 patients. Eur Urol 2015;67:787-94. [Crossref]
  • 6. Mariotti GC, Costa DN, Pedrosa I, Falsarella PM, Martins T, Roehrborn CG, et al. Magnetic resonance/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy of the prostate compared to systematic 12-core biopsy for the diagnosis and characterization of prostate cancer: multi-institutional retrospective analysis of 389 patients. Urol Oncol 2016;34:416.e9-416.e14. [Crossref]
  • 7. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 2016;69:16-40. [Crossref]
  • 8. Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, Hooft L, Ruud Bosch JLH, Reitsma HB, Barentsz JO, 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;71:517-31. [Crossref]
  • 9. Marra G, Ploussard G, Futterer J, Valerio M; EAU-YAU Prostate Cancer Working Party. Controversies in MR targeted biopsy: alone or combined, cognitive versus software-based fusion, transrectal versus transperineal approach? World J Urol 2019;37:277-87. [Crossref]
  • 10. Moldovan P, Udrescu C, Ravier E, Souchon R, Rabilloud M, Bratan F, et al. Accuracy of Elastic Fusion of Prostate Magnetic Resonance and Transrectal Ultrasound Images under Routine Conditions: A Prospective Multi-Operator Study. PLoS One 2016;11:e0169120. [Crossref]
  • 11. Puech P, Rouviere O, Renard-Penna R, Villers A, Devos P, Colombel M, et al. Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy--prospective multicenter study. Radiology 2013;268:461-9. [Crossref]
  • 12. Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, Stifelman MD, Lepor H, Deng FM, et al. 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 2014;66:343-51. [Crossref]
  • 13. Schouten MG, Hoeks CM, Bomers JG, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Witjes JA, Thompson LC, et al. Location of Prostate Cancers Determined by Multiparametric and MRI-Guided Biopsy in Patients With Elevated Prostate-Specific Antigen Level and at Least One Negative Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;205:57-63. [Crossref]
  • 14. Chatfield M. Pi-Rads Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System. American college of Radiology. 2015.
  • 15. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22:746-57. [Crossref]
  • 16. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System. Am J Surg Pathol 2016;40:244-52. [Crossref]
  • 17. Ahmed HU, Bosaily AE-S, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017;389:815-22. [Crossref]
  • 18. Delongchamps NB, Peyromaure M, Schull A, Beuvon F, Bouazza N, Flam T, et al. Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer detection: comparison of random and targeted biopsies. J Urol 2013;189:493-9. [Crossref]
  • 19. Rosenkrantz AB, Verma S, Choyke P, Eberhardt SC, Eggener SE, Gaitonde K, et al. Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy in Patients with a Prior Negative Biopsy: A Consensus Statement by AUA and SAR. J Urol 2016;196:1613-8. [Crossref]
  • 20. Schouten MG, van der Leest M, Pokorny M, Hoogenboom M, Barentsz JO, Thompson LC, et al. Why and Where do We Miss Significant Prostate Cancer with Multi-parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging followed by Magnetic Resonance-guided and Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Biopsy in Biopsy-naive Men? Eur Urol 2017;71:896-903. [Crossref]
  • 21. Monda SM, Vetter JM, Andriole GL, Fowler KJ, Shetty AS, Weese JR, et al. Cognitive Versus Software Fusion for MRI-targeted Biopsy: Experience Before and After Implementation of Fusion. Urology 2018;119:115-20. [Crossref]
  • 22. Barrett T, Patterson AJ, Koo BC, Wadhwa K, Warren AY, Doble A, et al. Targeted transperineal biopsy of the prostate has limited additional benefit over background cores for larger MRI-identified tumors. World J Urol 2016;34:501-8. [Crossref]
  • 23. Caverly TJ, Hayward RA, Reamer E, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Connochie D, Heisler M, et al. Presentation of Benefits and Harms in US Cancer Screening and Prevention Guidelines: Systematic Review. J Natl Cancer Inst 2016;108:djv436. [Crossref]
  • 24. Stark JR, Perner S, Stampfer MJ, Sinnott JA, Finn S, Eisenstein AS, et al. Gleason score and lethal prostate cancer: does 3 + 4 = 4 + 3? J Clin Oncol 2009;27:3459-64. [Crossref]
  • 25. Oderda M, Faletti R, Battisti G, Dalmasso E, Falcone M, Marra G, et al. Prostate Cancer Detection Rate with Koelis Fusion Biopsies versus Cognitive Biopsies: A Comparative Study. Urol Int 2016;97:230-7. [Crossref]
  • 26. Wegelin O, Exterkate L, van der Leest M, Kummer JA, Vreuls W, de Bruin PC, et al. The FUTURE Trial: A Multicenter Randomised Controlled Trial on Target Biopsy Techniques Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in Patients with Prior Negative Biopsies. Eur Urol 2019;75:582-90. [Crossref]
APA OZDEN E, AKPİNAR C, Ibis M, Kubilay E, Erden A, Yaman O (2021). Effect of lesion diameter and prostate volume on prostate cancer detection rate of magnetic resonance imaging: Transrectalultrasonography-guided fusion biopsies using cognitive targeting. , 22 - 29. 10.5152/tud.2020.20238
Chicago OZDEN Eriz,AKPİNAR CAGRİ,Ibis Muhammed Arif,Kubilay Eralp,Erden Ayşe,Yaman Onder Effect of lesion diameter and prostate volume on prostate cancer detection rate of magnetic resonance imaging: Transrectalultrasonography-guided fusion biopsies using cognitive targeting. (2021): 22 - 29. 10.5152/tud.2020.20238
MLA OZDEN Eriz,AKPİNAR CAGRİ,Ibis Muhammed Arif,Kubilay Eralp,Erden Ayşe,Yaman Onder Effect of lesion diameter and prostate volume on prostate cancer detection rate of magnetic resonance imaging: Transrectalultrasonography-guided fusion biopsies using cognitive targeting. , 2021, ss.22 - 29. 10.5152/tud.2020.20238
AMA OZDEN E,AKPİNAR C,Ibis M,Kubilay E,Erden A,Yaman O Effect of lesion diameter and prostate volume on prostate cancer detection rate of magnetic resonance imaging: Transrectalultrasonography-guided fusion biopsies using cognitive targeting. . 2021; 22 - 29. 10.5152/tud.2020.20238
Vancouver OZDEN E,AKPİNAR C,Ibis M,Kubilay E,Erden A,Yaman O Effect of lesion diameter and prostate volume on prostate cancer detection rate of magnetic resonance imaging: Transrectalultrasonography-guided fusion biopsies using cognitive targeting. . 2021; 22 - 29. 10.5152/tud.2020.20238
IEEE OZDEN E,AKPİNAR C,Ibis M,Kubilay E,Erden A,Yaman O "Effect of lesion diameter and prostate volume on prostate cancer detection rate of magnetic resonance imaging: Transrectalultrasonography-guided fusion biopsies using cognitive targeting." , ss.22 - 29, 2021. 10.5152/tud.2020.20238
ISNAD OZDEN, Eriz vd. "Effect of lesion diameter and prostate volume on prostate cancer detection rate of magnetic resonance imaging: Transrectalultrasonography-guided fusion biopsies using cognitive targeting". (2021), 22-29. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2020.20238
APA OZDEN E, AKPİNAR C, Ibis M, Kubilay E, Erden A, Yaman O (2021). Effect of lesion diameter and prostate volume on prostate cancer detection rate of magnetic resonance imaging: Transrectalultrasonography-guided fusion biopsies using cognitive targeting. Turkish Journal of Urology, 47(1), 22 - 29. 10.5152/tud.2020.20238
Chicago OZDEN Eriz,AKPİNAR CAGRİ,Ibis Muhammed Arif,Kubilay Eralp,Erden Ayşe,Yaman Onder Effect of lesion diameter and prostate volume on prostate cancer detection rate of magnetic resonance imaging: Transrectalultrasonography-guided fusion biopsies using cognitive targeting. Turkish Journal of Urology 47, no.1 (2021): 22 - 29. 10.5152/tud.2020.20238
MLA OZDEN Eriz,AKPİNAR CAGRİ,Ibis Muhammed Arif,Kubilay Eralp,Erden Ayşe,Yaman Onder Effect of lesion diameter and prostate volume on prostate cancer detection rate of magnetic resonance imaging: Transrectalultrasonography-guided fusion biopsies using cognitive targeting. Turkish Journal of Urology, vol.47, no.1, 2021, ss.22 - 29. 10.5152/tud.2020.20238
AMA OZDEN E,AKPİNAR C,Ibis M,Kubilay E,Erden A,Yaman O Effect of lesion diameter and prostate volume on prostate cancer detection rate of magnetic resonance imaging: Transrectalultrasonography-guided fusion biopsies using cognitive targeting. Turkish Journal of Urology. 2021; 47(1): 22 - 29. 10.5152/tud.2020.20238
Vancouver OZDEN E,AKPİNAR C,Ibis M,Kubilay E,Erden A,Yaman O Effect of lesion diameter and prostate volume on prostate cancer detection rate of magnetic resonance imaging: Transrectalultrasonography-guided fusion biopsies using cognitive targeting. Turkish Journal of Urology. 2021; 47(1): 22 - 29. 10.5152/tud.2020.20238
IEEE OZDEN E,AKPİNAR C,Ibis M,Kubilay E,Erden A,Yaman O "Effect of lesion diameter and prostate volume on prostate cancer detection rate of magnetic resonance imaging: Transrectalultrasonography-guided fusion biopsies using cognitive targeting." Turkish Journal of Urology, 47, ss.22 - 29, 2021. 10.5152/tud.2020.20238
ISNAD OZDEN, Eriz vd. "Effect of lesion diameter and prostate volume on prostate cancer detection rate of magnetic resonance imaging: Transrectalultrasonography-guided fusion biopsies using cognitive targeting". Turkish Journal of Urology 47/1 (2021), 22-29. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2020.20238