Robotic prostate biopsy and its relevance to focal therapy of prostate cancer

Nature Reviews Urology

Volumn 8, Issue 10, 2011, Pages 579-585

  Ho, Henry ^a   Yuen, John S P ^a   Cheng, Christopher W S ^a  

^a SINGAPORE GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Singapore)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABLATION THERAPY; BIOPSY TECHNIQUE; BLEEDING; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER LOCALIZATION; CANCER THERAPY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; ECHOGRAPHY; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FOCAL THERAPY; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; IMAGING; MORBIDITY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATIENT SELECTION; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; REVIEW; ROBOTIC PROSTATE BIOPSY; ROBOTICS; SEPSIS; TRANSPERINEAL BIOPSY; TRANSRECTAL BIOPSY;

ABLATION TECHNIQUES; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; ROBOTICS; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, INTERVENTIONAL;

EID: 80054048997     PISSN: 17594812     EISSN: 17594820     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrurol.2011.131     Document Type: Review

References (58)

1. Catalona, W. J., Smith, D. S., Ratliff, T. L. & Basler, J. W. Detection of organ-confined prostate cancer is increased through prostate-specific antigen-based screening. JAMA 270, 948-954 (1993).
2. Cooperberg, M. R., Lubeck, D. P., Meng, M. V., Mehta, S. S. & Carroll, P. R. The changing face of low-risk prostate cancer: Trends in clinical presentation and primary management. J. Clin. Oncol. 22, 2141-2149 (2004).
3. Caso, J. R., Mouraviev, V., Tsivian, M., Polascik, T. J. & Moul, J. W. Prostate cancer: An evolving paradigm. J. Endourol. 24, 805-809 (2010).
4. Andriole, G. L. et al. Mortality results from a randomized prostate cancer screening trial. N. Engl. J. Med. 360, 1310-1319 (2009).
5. Schröder, F. H. et al. Screening and prostate cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N. Engl. J. Med. 360, 1320-1328 (2009).
6. Gravas, S. & de Reijke, T. Is focal therapy an alternative to active surveillance? J. Endourol. 24, 855-860 (2010).
7. Hu, J. C. et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA 302, 1557-1564 (2009).
8. Cahlon, O., Hunt, M. & Zelefsky, M. J. Intensity-modulated radiation therapy: Supportive data for prostate cancer. Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 18, 48-57 (2008).
9. Klotz, L. Active surveillance with selective delayed intervention: Using natural history to guide treatment in good risk prostate cancer. J. Urol. 172, S48-S50 (2004).
10. Jayram, E. & Eggener, S. E. Patient selection for focal therapy of prostate cancer. Curr. Opin. Urol. 19, 268-273 (2009).
11. Hall, G. S., Kramer, C. E. & Epstein, J. I. Evaluation of radical prostatectomy specimens: A comparative analysis of sampling methods. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 16, 315-324 (1992).
12. Ahmed, H. U. The index lesion and the origin of prostate cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 361, 1704-1706 (2009).
13. Karavitakis, M., Ahmed, H. U., Abel, P. D., Hazell, S. & Winkler, M. H. Tumor focality in prostate cancer: Implications for focal therapy. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 8, 48-55 (2011).
14. Mouraviev, V. et al. Prostate cancer laterality as a rationale of ablative therapy for the treatment of clinically localized prostate. Cancer 110, 906-910 (2007).
15. Tareen, B. et al. Appropriate candidates for hemiablative focal therapy are infrequently encountered among men selected for radical prostatectomy in contemporary cohort. Urology 73, 351-354 (2009).
16. Ahmed, H. U. & Emberton, M. Benchmarks for success in focal therapy of prostate cancer. World J. Urol. 28, 577-582 (2010).
17. D'Amico, A. V. et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280, 969-974 (1998).
18. No authors listed. Consensus statement: Guidelines for PSA following radiation therapy. American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Consensus Panel. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 37, 1035-1041 (1997).
19. Stamey, T. A. et al. Prostate-specific antigen as a serum marker for adenocarcinoma of the prostate. N. Engl. J. Med. 317, 909-916 (1987).
20. Ahmed, H. U., Moore, C., Lecornet, E. & Emberton, M. Focal therapy in prostate cancer: Determinants of success and failure. J. Endourol. 24, 819-825 (2010).
21. Dall'Era, M. A. et al. Active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer: Review of the current literature. Cancer 112, 1650-1659 (2008).
22. Kim, C. K., Park, B. K., Lee, H. M., Kim, S. S. & Kim, E. MRI techniques for prediction of local tumor progression after high-intensity focused ultrasonic ablation of prostate cancer. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 190, 1180-1186 (2008).
23. Rouviére, O. et al. Prostate cancer transrectal HIFU ablation: Detection of local recurrences using T2-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Eur. Radiol. 20, 48-55 (2010).
24. Vellet, A. D. et al. Prostatic cryosurgery: Use of MR imaging in evaluation of success and technical modifications. Radiology 203, 653-659 (1997).
25. Pallwein, L. et al. Value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and elastography in imaging of prostate cancer. Curr. Opin. Urol. 17, 39-47 (2007).
26. Kitajima, K. et al. Prostate cancer detection with 3T MRI: Comparison of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in combination with T2-weighted imaging. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 31, 625-631 (2010).
27. Pinto, F. et al. Imaging in prostate cancer diagnosis: Present role and future perspectives. Urol. Int. 86, 373-382 (2011).
28. Levine, M. A., Ittman, M., Melamed, J. & Lepor, H. Two consecutive sets of transrectal ultrasound guided sextant biopsies of the prostate for the detection of prostate cancer. J. Urol. 159, 471-475 (1998).
29. Demura, T. et al. Differences in tumor core distribution between palpable and nonpalpable prostate tumors in patients diagnosed using extensive transperineal ultrasound-guided template prostate biopsy. Cancer 103, 1826-1832 (2005).
30. Tiara, A. V. et al. Performance of transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy in detecting prostate cancer in the initial and repeat biopsy setting. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 13, 71-77 (2010).
31. Djavan, B. et al. Safety and morbidity of first and repeat transrectal ultrasound guided prostate needle biopsies: Results of a prospective European prostate cancer detection study. J. Urol. 166, 856-860 (2001).
32. Rietbergen, J. B., Kruger, A. E., Kranse, E. & Schröder, F. H. Complications of transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic sextant biopsies of the prostate: Evaluation of complication rates and risk factors within a population-based screening program. Urology 49, 875-880 (1997).
33. Lange, D. et al. Bacterial sepsis after prostate biopsy-a new perspective. Urology 74, 1200-1205 (2009).
34. Hadway, P. et al. Urosepsis and bacteraemia caused by antibiotic-resisitant organisms after transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy. BJU Int. 104, 1556-1558 (2009).
35. Feliciano, J. et al. The incidence of fluoroquinolone resistant infections after prostate biopsy-are fluoroquinolone still effective prophylaxis? J. Urol. 179, 952-955 (2008).
36. Mohan, P., Ho, H., Yuen, J. S. P., Ng, W. S. & Cheng, W. S. A 3D computer simulation to study the efficacy of transperineal versus transrectal biopsy of the prostate. Int. J. Comput. Assist. Radiol. Surg. 1, 351-360 (2007).
37. Kawakami, S. et al. Transrectal ultrasound-guided transperineal 14-core systematic biopsy detects apico-anterior cancer foci of T1c prostate cancer. Int. J. Urol. 11, 613-618 (2004).
38. Merrick, G. S. et al. The morbidity of transperineal template-guided prostate mapping biopsy. BJU Int. 101, 1524-1529 (2008).
39. Shandera, K. C., Thibault, G. P. & Deshon, G. E. Jr. Variability in patient preparation for prostate biopsy among American urologists. Urology 52, 644-646 (1998).
40. Onik, G., Miessau, M. & Bostwick, D. G. Three-dimensional prostate mapping biopsy has a potentially significant impact on prostate cancer management. J. Clin. Oncol. 27, 4321-4326 (2009).
41. Emiliozzi, P. et al. The value of a single biopsy with 12 transperineal cores for detecting prostate cancer in patients with elevated prostate specific antigen. J. Urol. 166, 845-849 (2001).
42. Elhawary, H. et al. The case for MR-compatible robotics: A review of the state of the art. Int. J. Med. Robot. 4, 105-113 (2008).
43. Ho, H. S. et al. Robotic ultrasound-guided prostate intervention device: System description and results from phantom studies. Int. J. Med. Robot. 5, 51-58 (2009).
44. Ho, H. et al. A device for precise robotic assisted transperineal saturation prostate biopsy in men with previous negative biopsy: Preliminary study [abstract V2061]. J. Urol. 179 (Suppl.), 710 (2008).
45. Ho, H. et al. Robotic transperineal prostate biopsy: Pilot clinical study. Urology http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.07.1389
46. Ho, H. et al. Robotic-assisted transperineal prostate biopsy with novel device for future prostate interventions: 3-years' clinical experience [abstract 1091]. J. Urol. 183 (Suppl.), e424-e425 (2010).
47. Andriole, G. L. et al. Is there a better way to biopsy the prostate? Prospects for a novel transrectal systematic biopsy approach. Urology 70 (6 Suppl.), 22-26 (2007).
48. Megwalu, I. I. et al. Evaluation of a novel precision template-guided biopsy system for detecting prostate cancer. BJU Int. 102, 546-550 (2008).
49. Natarajan, S. et al. Clinical application of a 3D ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy system. Urol. Oncol. 29, 334-342 (2011).
50. Gassert, R. et al. A 2-DOF fMR-compatible haptic interface to investigate the neural control of arm movements. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference 3825-3831 (2006).
51. Masamune, K. et al. Development of an MRI-compatible needle insertion manipulator for stereotactic neurosurgery. J. Image Guid. Surg. 1, 242-248 (1995).
52. Stoianovici, D., Patriciu, A., Petrisor, D., Mazilu, D. & Kavoussi, L. A new type of motor: Pneumatic step motor. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics 12, 98-106 (2007).
53. Fischer, G. S., DiMaio, S., Iordachita, I. I. & Fichtinger, G. Robotic assistant for transperineal prostate intervention in 3T closed MRI. Med. Image Comput. Comput. Assist. Interv. 10, 425-433 (2007).
54. Zangos, S. et al. MR-compatible assistance system for punction in a high-field system: Device and feasibility of transgluteal biopsies of the prostate gland. Eur. Radiol. 17, 1118-1124 (2007).
55. Zangos, S. et al. MR-compatible assistance system for biopsy in a high-field-strength system: Initial results in patients with suspicious prostate lesions. Radiology 259, 903-910 (2011).
56. Engelhard, K. et al. Prostate biopsy in the supine position in a standard 1.5-T scanner under real time MR-imaging control using a MR-compatible endorectal biopsy device. Eur. Radiol. 16, 1237-1243 (2006).
57. Singh, A. K. et al. Initial clinical experience with real-time transrectal ultrasonography-magnetic resonance imaging fusion-guided prostate biopsy. BJU Int. 101, 841-845 (2008).
58. Ukimura, O. et al. Technique for a hybrid system of real-time transrectal ultrasound with preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in the guidance of targeted prostate biopsy. Int. J. Urol. 10, 890-893 (2010).