Manyetik rezonans görüntüleme-ultrason füzyon prostat biyopsisi tek merkez sonuçları
Amaç: Çalışmamızda tek merkeze ait manyetik rezonans görüntüleme-ultrason füzyon prostat biyopsisi (MRI-US FPBx ) sonuçlarını değerlendirmek ve güncel literatürle karşılaştırmak istedik. Gereç ve Yöntemler:: Ocak 2016 ile Temmuz 2019 arasında 358 erkeğin MRI-US FPBx sonuçları retrospektif olarak analiz edildi. PI-RADS skorları 222 (% 62), 107 (% 29.8) ve 29 (% 8.1) hastada sırasıyla 3, 4 ve 5 olarak tespit edildi. Toplam 454 lezyona MRI-US FPBx uygulandı. 303 (% 66,7) lezyon PI-RADS 3, 120 (% 26,4) lezyon PI-RADS 4 ve 31 (% 6,8) lezyon PI-RADS 5 olarak skorlandı. Lezyonların 315'i (% 69,3) periferik zonda, 26'sı (% 5,7) santral zonda, 111'i (% 24,4) geçiş zonu ve 2'si anterior fibromüsküler stromada idi. Bulgular: Genel prostat kanseri (PCa) tespit oranı% 36.3 idi. Tek başına MRI-US FPBx ve tek başına transrektal ultrasonografi eşliğinde prostat biyopsisi (TRUS-Bx) kanser saptama oranları sırasıyla % 27.6 ve% 26.5 idi. PI-RADS-3 ve PI-RADS 4 & 5 için MRI-US FPBx'e özgü kanser tespit oranı sırasıyla % 6,9 ve% 20,6 idi. Klinik olarak önemli prostat kanseri (csPCa) oranları değerlendirildi ve TRUS-Bx, MRI-US FPBx ve kombine teknikler için csPCa ve PCa oranları sırasıyla % 16.8, % 35.4 ve % 39.2 idi. 11 hastanın biyopsi sonuçları benigndi. Sonuç: MRI-US FPBx , prostat biyopsi prosedürünün başarı oranını önemli ölçüde artırır. Ancak mevcut MRI teknolojisine göre, MRI-US FPBx'i TRUS-Bx olmaksızın bağımsız bir biyopsi seçeneği olarak düşünmek uygun olmadığı görüşündeyiz.
Single center results of magnetic resonance imaging ultrasound guided fusion prostate biopsy obtained patients
Objective: We aimed to evaluate magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound guided fusion prostate biopsy (MRI- US FPBx) results from a single center and compare with current literature. Material and Methods: Between January 2016 and July 2019, MRI-US FPBx pathological and imaging results of 358 men were retrospectively analyzed. PI-RADS scores were determined as 3, 4 and 5 in 222 (62%), 107 (29.8%) and 29 (8.1%) patients, respectively. Totally 454 lesions were underwent MRI-US FPBx. 303 (66.7%) lesions were scored as PI-RADS 3, 120 (26.4%) lesions were scored as PI-RADS 4 and 31 (6.8%) lesions were scored as PI-RADS 5. 315 (69.3%) of lesions were in peripheral zone, 26 (5.7%) were in central zone, 111 (24.4%) were in transitional zone and 2 of them were in anterior fibromuscular stroma. Results: Overall prostate cancer detection rate was 36.3%. Concerning detection rates, MRI-US FPBx alone and transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-Bx) alone were 27.6% and 26.5%, respectively. Cancer detection rate only through MRI-US FPBx PIRADS-3 and PI-RADS 4&5 were 6.9% and 20.6%, respectively. Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) rates were evaluated and csPCa to overall prostate cancer (PCa) rates for TRUS-Bx, MRI-US FPBx and combined techniques were 16.8%, 35.4% and 39.2%, respectively. Results of 11 patients were evaluated as benign. Conclusion: MRI-US FPBx significantly increases success rate of prostate biopsy procedure. Regarding current MRI technology, it is not appropriate to consider MRI-US FPBx as a stand-alone biopsy option without concomitant with TRUS-Bx.
___
- 1. Hernandez-Aragues I, Baniandres-Rodriguez O. Basal
cell carcinoma of the scrotum. Actas Urol Esp. 2016;
40(9):592-593.
- 2. Hoffman RM. Clinical practice. Screening for prostate
cancer. N Engl J Med. 2011; 365(21):2013-2019.
- 3. Quon JS, Moosavi B, Khanna M, et al. False positive
and false negative diagnoses of prostate cancer at
multi-parametric prostate MRI in active surveillance.
Insights Imaging. 2015; 6(4):449-463.
- 4. Bonekamp D, Jacobs MA, El-Khouli R, Stoianovici D,
Macura KJ. Advancements in MR imaging of the prostate:
from diagnosis to interventions. Radiographics.
2011; 31(3):677-703.
- 5. Siddiqui MM, George AK, Rubin R, et al. Efficiency
of Prostate Cancer Diagnosis by MR/Ultrasound Fusion-
Guided Biopsy vs Standard Extended-Sextant Biopsy
for MR-Visible Lesions. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;
108(9).
- 6. Defontaines J, Salomon L, Champy C, et al. [Prostate
cancer diagnostic by saturation randomized biopsy versus
rigid targeted biopsy]. Prog Urol. 2017; 27(16):1023-
1030.
- 7. Demirtaş A, Sönmez G, Tombul Ş T, Demirtaş T, Akgün
H. Comparison of the Upgrading Rates of International
Society of Urological Pathology Grades and Tumor Laterality
in Patients Undergoing Standard 12-Core Prostate
Biopsy versus Fusion Prostate Biopsy for Prostate
Cancer. Urol Int. 2019; 103(3):256-261.
- 8. Merrett C, Mannas M, Black PC, Zargar H. Magnet
Before the Needle Commentary on: MRI-targeted or
Standard Biopsy for Prostate-cancer Diagnosis (PRECISION
Trial). Urology. 2018; 118:1-2.
- 9. Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH. Diagnostic
Performance of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data
System Version 2 for Detection of Prostate Cancer: A
Systematic Review and Diagnostic Meta-analysis. Eur
Urol. 2017; 72(2):177-88.
- 10. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS
Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015,
Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016; 69(1):16-40.
- 11. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, 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(2):244-252.
- 12. Benelli A, Vaccaro C, Guzzo S, et al. The role of MRI/
TRUS fusion biopsy in the diagnosis of clinically
significant prostate cancer. Ther Adv Urol. 2020;
12:1756287220916613.
- 13. Stabile A, Giganti F, Rosenkrantz AB, et al. Multiparametric
MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis: current status
and future directions. Nat Rev Urol. 2020; 17(1):41-61.
- 14. Gayet M, van der Aa A, Beerlage HP, et al. The value
of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography
(MRI/US)-fusion biopsy platforms in prostate cancer
detection: a systematic review. BJU Int. 2016; 117:392-
400.
- 15. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, 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.
- 16. Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU -
ESTRO - ESUR - SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer
2020. European Association of Urology Guidelines
2020 Edition. Paper Presented at the EAU Annual Congress
Amsterdam 2020. Arnhem, The Netherlands: European
Association of Urology Guidelines Office; 2020.
- 17. Fourcade A, Payrard C, Tissot V, et al. The combination
of targeted and systematic prostate biopsies is the best
protocol for the detection of clinically significant prostate
cancer. Scand J Urol. 2018; 52(3):174-179.
- 18. Porpiglia F, Manfredi M, Mele 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(2):282-
288.
- 19. Costa DN, Pedrosa I, Donato F, Jr., Roehrborn CG, Rofsky
NM. MR Imaging-Transrectal US Fusion for Targeted
Prostate Biopsies: Implications for Diagnosis and
Clinical Management. Radiographics. 2015; 35(3):696-
708.
- 20. Valerio M, Donaldson I, Emberton M, et al. Detection
of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Magnetic
Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsy:
A Systematic Review. Eur Urol. 2015; 68(1):8-19.
- 21. Pinto PA, Chung PH, Rastinehad AR, et al. Magnetic
resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal
ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric
magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol. 2011; 186(4):1281-
1285.
- 22. Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, 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(2):343-351.
- 23. Stabile A, Dell’Oglio P, Gandaglia G, et al. Not All Multiparametric
Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsies
Are Equal: The Impact of the Type of Approach
and Operator Expertise on the Detection of Clinically
Significant Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2018;
1(2):120-128.
- 24. Cash H, Maxeiner A, Stephan C, et al. The detection of
significant prostate cancer is correlated with the Prostate
Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) in
MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. World J Urol.
2016; 34(4):525-532.
- 25. Murphy IG, NiMhurchu E, Gibney RG, McMahon CJ.
MRI-directed cognitive fusion-guided biopsy of the
anterior prostate tumors. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2017;
23(2):87-93.
- 26. Sönmez G, Tombul Ş T, İmamoğlu H, et al. Multiparametric
MRI fusion-guided prostate biopsy in biopsy naive
patients: Preliminary results from 80 patients. Turk J
Urol. 2019; 45:196-201.
- 27. Truong M, Frye TP. Magnetic resonance imaging detection
of prostate cancer in men with previous negative
prostate biopsy. Transl Androl Urol. 2017; 6(3):424-31.
- 28. Mendhiratta N, Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, et al. Prebiopsy
MRI and MRI-ultrasound Fusion-targeted Prostate
Biopsy in Men With Previous Negative Biopsies:
Impact on Repeat Biopsy Strategies. Urology. 2015;
86(6):1192-1198.
- 29. Kenigsberg AP, Renson A, Rosenkrantz AB, et al. Optimizing
the Number of Cores Targeted During Prostate
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Fusion Target Biopsy. Eur
Urol Oncol. 2018; 1:418-425.
- 30. Sonmez G, Demirtas T, Tombul ST, Ozturk F, Demirtas
A. What is the ideal number of biopsy cores per lesion
in targeted prostate biopsy? Prostate Int. 2020; 8(3):112-
115.