A prospective comparison of MRI-US fused targeted biopsy versus systematic ultrasound-guided biopsy for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in patients on active surveillance

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Volumn 41, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 220-225

  Da Rosa, Michael R ^a   Milot, Laurent ^a   Sugar, Linda ^a   Vesprini, Danny ^a   Chung, Hans ^a   Loblaw, Andrew ^a   Pond, Gregory R ^b   Klotz, Laurence ^a   Haider, Masoom A ^a  

^a SUNNYBROOK RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Active surveillance; MRI ultrasound fusion biopsy; Multiparametric MRI; Prostate

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOPSY NEEDLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER PATIENT; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING ULTRASOUND FUSED TARGETED BIOPSY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATE CANCER; SYSTEMATIC TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY GUIDED BIOPSY; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; TUMOR BIOPSY; ADULT; AGED; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ECHOGRAPHY; ENDOSCOPIC ECHOGRAPHY; IMAGE GUIDED BIOPSY; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIMODAL IMAGING; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY;

ADULT; AGED; HUMANS; IMAGE-GUIDED BIOPSY; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIMODAL IMAGING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, INTERVENTIONAL;

EID: 84919327407     PISSN: 10531807     EISSN: 15222586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24710     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Cooperberg MR, Broering JM, Carroll PR. Risk assessment for prostate cancer metastasis and mortality at the time of diagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:878-887.
2. Anandadas CN, Clarke NW, Davidson SE, et al. North West Uro-oncology Group. Early prostate cancer-which treatment do men prefer and why? BJU Int 2011;107:1762-1768.
3. Roemeling S, Roobol MJ, Postma R, et al. Management and survival of screen-detected prostate cancer patients who might have been suitable for active surveillance. Eur Urol 2006;50:475-482.
4. Fütterer JJ, Heijmink SW, Scheenen TW, et al. Prostate cancer localization with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 2006;241:449-458.
5. Haider MA, van der Kwast TH, Tanguay J, et al. Combined T2- weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI for localization of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:323-328.
6. Turkbey B, Mani H, Aras O, et al. Prostate cancer: can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance? Radiology 2013;268:144-152.
7. Klotz L, Zhang L, Lam A, Nam R, Mamedov A, Loblaw A. Clinical results of long-term follow-up of a large, active surveillance cohort with localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:126-131.
8. Haas GP, Delongchamps NB, Jones RF, et al. Needle biopsies on autopsy prostates: sensitivity of cancer detection based on true prevalence. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99:1484-1489.
9. Serefoglu EC, Altinova S, Ugras NS, Akincioglu E, Asil E, Balbay MD. How reliable is 12-core prostate biopsy procedure in the detection of prostate cancer? Can Urol Assoc J 2012;2:1-6.
10. Turkbey B, Xu S, Kruecker J, et al. Documenting the location of prostate biopsies with image fusion. BJU Int 2011;107:53-57.
11. Rud E, Baco E, Eggesb HB. MRI and ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy using soft image fusion. Anticancer Res 2012;32:3383-3389.
12. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. European Society of Urogenital Radiology. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22:746-757.
13. Rosenkrantz AB, Kim S, Lim RP, et al. Prostate cancer localization using multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and Likert scales. Radiology 2013;269:482-492.
14. Xu S, Kruecker J, Turkbey B, et al. Real-time MRI-TRUS fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsies. Comput Aided Surg 2008;13:255-264.
15. 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;186:1281-1285.
16. Vourganti S, Rastinehad A, Yerram NK, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound fusion biopsy detect prostate cancer in patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies. J Urol 2012;188:2152-5157.
17. Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V, Eggener S, et al. Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an international working group. Eur Urol 2013;64:544-552.
18. Guichard G, Larré S, Gallina A, et al. Extended 21-sample needle biopsy protocol for diagnosis of prostate cancer in 1000 consecutive patients. Eur Urol 2007;52:430-435.
19. Ahmed HU, Arya M, Freeman A, et al. Do low-grade and lowvolume prostate cancers bear the hallmarks of malignancy? Lancet Oncol 2012;13:e509-e517.
20. Carter HB, Partin AW, Walsh PC, et al. Gleason score 6 adenocarcinoma: should it be labeled as cancer? J Clin Oncol 2012;30: 4294-4296.
21. Fradet V, Kurhanewicz J, Cowan JE, et al. Prostate cancer managed with active surveillance: role of anatomic MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 2010;256:176-183.
22. Mullins JK, Bonekamp D, Landis P, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging findings in men with low-risk prostate cancer followed using active surveillance. BJU Int 2013;111:1037-1045.
23. Rais-Bahrami S, Siddiqui MM, Turkbey B, et al. Utility of multiparametric MRI suspicion levels in detecting prostate cancer. J Urol 2013;190:1721-1727.
24. Hadaschik BA, Kuru TH, Tulea C, et al. A novel stereotactic prostate biopsy system integrating pre-interventional magnetic resonance imaging and live ultrasound fusion. J Urol 2011;186:2214-2220.
25. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong H, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. J Urol 2013;64:713-719.