MRI-guided prostate biopsy detects clinically significant cancer: Analysis of a cohort of 100 patients after previous negative TRUS biopsy

World Journal of Urology

Volumn 30, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 213-218

  Roethke, M ^a,b   Anastasiadis, A G ^a   Lichy, M ^a   Werner, M ^a   Wagner, P ^a   Kruck, S ^a   Claussen, Claus D ^a   Stenzl, A ^a   Schlemmer, H P ^b   Schilling, D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

^b GERMAN CANCER RESEARCH CENTER DKFZ   (Germany)

Author keywords

Detection rate; MRI guided biopsy; Prostate cancer; PSA; Significant carcinoma; TRUS

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

AGED; ARTICLE; BLOOD; CARCINOMA; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ECHOGRAPHY; ENDOSCOPIC ECHOGRAPHY; HUMAN; INTERVENTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PATHOLOGY; PROSTATE; PROSTATE TUMOR;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; CARCINOMA; COHORT STUDIES; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, INTERVENTIONAL; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTATE; PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, INTERVENTIONAL;

EID: 84859444526     PISSN: 07244983     EISSN: 14338726     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-011-0675-2     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Ahmed HU, Kirkham A, Arya M et al (2009) Is it time to consider a role for MRI before prostate biopsy? Nat Rev Clin Oncol 6: 197-206.
2. Amsellem-Ouazana D, Younes P, Conquy S et al (2005) Negative prostatic biopsies in patients with a high risk of prostate cancer. Is the combination of endorectal MRI and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging (MRSI) a useful tool? A preliminary study. Eur Urol 47: 582-586.
3. Anastasiadis AG, Lichy MP, Nagele U et al (2006) MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate increases diagnostic performance in men with elevated or increasing PSA levels after previous negative TRUS biopsies. Eur Urol 50: 738-748.
4. Beyersdorff D, Winkel A, Hamm B et al (2005) MR imaging-guided prostate biopsy with a closed MR unit at 1. 5 T: initial results. Radiology 234: 576-581.
5. Colleselli D, Schilling D, Lichy MP et al (2010) Topographical sensitivity and specificity of endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection. Urol Int 84: 388-394.
6. Deliveliotis C, Varkarakis J, Albanis S et al (2002) Biopsies of the transitional zone of the prostate. Should it be done on a routine basis, when and why? Urol Int 68: 113-117.
7. Djavan B, Milani S, Remzi M (2005) Prostate biopsy: who, how and when. An update. Can J Urol 12(Suppl 1): 44-48.
8. Engelhard K, Hollenbach HP, Kiefer B et al (2006) 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.
9. Fradet V, Kurhanewicz J, Cowan JE et al (2010) Prostate cancer managed with active surveillance: role of anatomic MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 256: 176-183.
10. Hambrock T, Futterer JJ, Huisman HJ et al (2008) Thirty-two-channel coil 3T magnetic resonance-guided biopsies of prostate tumor suspicious regions identified on multimodality 3T magnetic resonance imaging: technique and feasibility. Invest Radiol 43: 686-694.
11. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Hoeks C et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. J Urol 183: 520-527.
12. Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M et al (2008) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol 53: 68-80.
13. Labanaris AP, Zugor V, Smiszek R et al (2010) Guided e-MRI prostate biopsy can solve the discordance between Gleason score biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Magn Reson Imaging 28: 943-946.
14. Lichy MP, Pintaske J, Kottke R et al (2005) 3D proton MR spectroscopic imaging of prostate cancer using a standard spine coil at 1. 5 T in clinical routine: a feasibility study. Eur Radiol 15: 653-660.
15. Lujan M, Paez A, Santonja C et al (2004) Prostate cancer detection and tumor characteristics in men with multiple biopsy sessions. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 7: 238-242.
16. McNeal JE (1969) Origin and development of carcinoma in the prostate. Cancer 23: 24-34.
17. Norberg M, Egevad L, Holmberg L et al (1997) The sextant protocol for ultrasound-guided core biopsies of the prostate underestimates the presence of cancer. Urology 50: 562-566.
18. Pallwein L, Mitterberger M, Pelzer A et al (2008) Ultrasound of prostate cancer: recent advances. Eur Radiol 18: 707-715.
19. Park BK, Lee HM, Kim CK et al (2008) Lesion localization in patients with a previous negative transrectal ultrasound biopsy and persistently elevated prostate specific antigen level using diffusion-weighted imaging at three Tesla before rebiopsy. Invest Radiol 43: 789-793.
20. Roethke MC, Lichy MP, Jurgschat L, et al. (2010) Tumorsize dependent detection rate of endorectal MRI of prostate cancer-A histopathologic correlation with whole-mount sections in 70 patients with prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol.
21. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ et al (2009) Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 360: 1320-1328.
22. Sciarra A, Panebianco V, Ciccariello M et al (2010) Value of magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging for detecting prostate cancer foci in men with prior negative biopsy. Clin Cancer Res 16: 1875-1883.
23. Umbehr M, Bachmann LM, Held U et al (2009) Combined magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 55: 575-590.
24. Uzzo RG, Wei JT, Waldbaum RS et al (1995) The influence of prostate size on cancer detection. Urology 46: 831-836.
25. Yuen JS, Thng CH, Tan PH et al (2004) Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for the detection of tumor foci in men with prior negative transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy. J Urol 171: 1482-1486.
26. Zackrisson B, Aus G, Bergdahl S et al (2004) The risk of finding focal cancer (less than 3 mm) remains high on re-biopsy of patients with persistently increased prostate specific antigen but the clinical significance is questionable. J Urol 171: 1500-1503.
27. Zakian KL, Sircar K, Hricak H et al (2005) Correlation of proton MR spectroscopic imaging with gleason score based on step-section pathologic analysis after radical prostatectomy. Radiology 234: 804-814.
28. Zangos S, Eichler K, Engelmann K et al (2005) MR-guided transgluteal biopsies with an open low-field system in patients with clinically suspected prostate cancer: technique and preliminary results. Eur Radiol 15: 174-182.