Transperineal in-bore 3-T MR imaging-guided prostate biopsy: A prospective clinical observational study

Radiology

Volumn 274, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 170-180

  Penzkofer, Tobias ^a,b   Tuncali, Kemal ^a   Fedorov, Andriy ^a   Song, Sang Eun ^a   Tokuda, Junichi ^a   Fennessy, Fiona M ^a,d   Vangel, Mark G ^c   Kibel, Adam S ^a   Mulkern, Robert V ^a,e   Wells, William M ^a   Hata, Nobuhiko ^a   Tempany, Clare M C ^a  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL RWTH AACHEN   (Germany)

^c MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d DANA FARBER CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^e BOSTON CHILDREN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGED; ANATOMICAL VARIATION; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY; CANCER RECURRENCE; CORE BIOPSY NEEDLE; DEVICE SAFETY; DIAGNOSTIC APPROACH ROUTE; GLEASON SCORE; HEMATOMA; HEMATURIA; HEMOSPERMIA; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE GUIDED BIOPSY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; OPERATION DURATION; PAIN; PERIPROSTATIC HEMATOMA; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; URINE RETENTION; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; INTERVENTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PERINEUM; PROCEDURES; PROSTATE TUMOR;

CONTRAST MEDIUM; GADOLINIUM PENTETATE;

AGED; CONTRAST MEDIA; GADOLINIUM DTPA; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGE-GUIDED BIOPSY; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, INTERVENTIONAL; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERINEUM; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84919778618     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14140221     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Prostate cancer key statistics. American Cancer Society Web site. http://www.cancer.org/cancer/prostatecancer/detailedguide/pros-tate-cancer-key-statistics. Published August 26, 2013. Updated March 12, 2014. Accessed July 5, 2013.
2. Bray F, Jemal A, Grey N, Ferlay J, Forman D. Global cancer transitions according to the Human Development Index (2008-2030): a population-based study. Lancet Oncol 2012; 13(8): 790-801.
3. Onik G, Miessau M, Bostwick DG. Three-dimensional prostate mapping biopsy has a potentially significant impact on prostate cancer management. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27(26): 4321-4326.
4. Arumainayagam N, Ahmed HU, Moore CM, et al. Multiparametric MR imaging for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: a validation cohort study with transperineal template prostate mapping as the reference standard. Radiology 2013; 268(3): 761-769.
5. Chang DT, Challacombe B, Lawrentschuk N. Transperineal biopsy of the prostate: is this the future? Nat Rev Urol 2013; 10(12): 690-702.
6. Hegde J V, Mulkern RV, Panych LP, et al. Multiparametric MRI of prostate cancer: an update on state-of-the-art techniques and their performance in detecting and localizing prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013; 37(5): 1035-1054.
7. Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron D, Carroll P, Coakley F. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: present and future. Curr Opin Urol 2008; 18(1): 71-77.
8. Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, Kattan M W, et al. The utility of magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for predicting insignificant prostate cancer: an initial analysis. BJU Int 2007; 99(4): 786-793.
9. Villers A, Puech P, Mouton D, Leroy X, Ballereau C, Lemaitre L. Dynamic contrast enhanced, pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging of localized prostate cancer for predicting tumor volume: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. J Urol 2006; 176(6 Pt 1): 2432-2437.
10. Fütterer JJ, Heijmink S W, Scheenen TW, et al. Prostate cancer localization with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 2006; 241(2): 449-458.
11. Haker SJ, Mulkern RV, Roebuck JR, et al. Magnetic resonance-guided prostate interventions. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 16(5): 355-368.
12. D'amico AV, Tempany CM, Schultz D, et al. Comparing PSA outcome after radical prostatectomy or magnetic resonance imaging-guided partial prostatic irradiation in select patients with clinically localized adenocarci-noma of the prostate. Urology 2003; 62(6): 1063-1067.
13. Moore CM, Robertson NL, Arsanious N, et al. Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2013; 63(1): 125-140.
14. Robertson NL, Emberton M, Moore CM. MRI-targeted prostate biopsy: a review of technique and results. Nat Rev Urol 2013; 10(10): 589-597.
15. Overduin CG, Fütterer JJ, Barentsz JO. MRI-guided biopsy for prostate cancer detection: a systematic review of current clinical results. Curr Urol Rep 2013; 14(3): 209-213.
16. Nelson AW, Harvey RC, Parker RA, Kastner C, Doble A, Gnanapragasam VJ. Repeat prostate biopsy strategies after initial negative biopsy: meta-regression comparing cancer detection of transperineal, transrectal saturation and MRI guided biopsy. PLoS ONE 2013; 8(2): e57480.
17. Hata N, Jinzaki M, Kacher D, et al. MR imaging-guided prostate biopsy with surgical navigation software: device validation and feasibility. Radiology 2001; 220(1): 263-268.
18. D'Amico AV, Cormack RA, Tempany CM. MRI-guided diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2001; 344(10): 776-777.
19. Tokuda J, Tuncali K, Iordachita I, et al. Inbore setup and software for 3T MRI-guided transperineal prostate biopsy. Phys Med Biol 2012; 57(18): 5823-5840.
20. Fedorov A, Tuncali K, Fennessy FM, et al. Image registration for targeted MRI-guided transperineal prostate biopsy. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012; 36(4): 987-992.
21. Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL, et al. Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999; 10(3): 223-232.
22. Fedorov A, Beichel R, Kalpathy-Cramer J, et al. 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network. Magn Reson Imaging 2012; 30(9): 1323-1341.
23. Rosenkrantz AB, Kim S, Lim RP, et al. Prostate cancer localization using multiparamet-ric MR imaging: comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and Likert scales. Radiology 2013; 269(2): 482-492.
24. Oguro S, Tokuda J, Elhawary H, et al. MRI signal intensity based B-spline nonrigid registration for pre- and intraoperative imaging during prostate brachytherapy. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009; 30(5): 1052-1058.
25. Song SE, Tokuda J, Tuncali K, Tempany CM, Zhang E, Hata N. Development and preliminary evaluation of a motorized needle guide template for MRI-guided targeted prostate biopsy. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2013; 60(11): 3019-3027.
26. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2013.
27. 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(6): 2214-2220.
28. Kasivisvanathan V, Dufour R, Moore CM, et al. Transperineal magnetic resonance image targeted prostate biopsy versus transperi-neal template prostate biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. J Urol 2013; 189(3): 860-866.
29. 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.
30. Marks L, Young S, Natarajan S. MRI-ultra-sound fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsy. Curr Opin Urol 2013; 23(1): 43-50.
31. Natarajan S, Marks LS, Margolis DJ, et al. Clinical application of a 3D ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy system. Urol Oncol 2011; 29(3): 334-342.
32. Beyersdorff D, Winkel A, Hamm B, Lenk S, Loening SA, Taupitz M. MR imaging-guided prostate biopsy with a closed MR unit at 1.5 T: initial results. Radiology 2005; 234(2): 576-581.
33. Engehausen DG, Engelhard K, Schwab SA, et al. Magnetic resonance image-guided biopsies with a high detection rate of prostate cancer. Scientifoc World Journal 2012; 2012: 975971.
34. Franiel T, Stephan C, Erbersdobler A, et al. Areas suspicious for prostate cancer: MR-guided biopsy in patients with at least one transrectal US-guided biopsy with a negative finding-multiparametric MR imaging for detection and biopsy planning. Radiology 2011; 259(1): 162-172.
35. Hambrock T, Fütterer JJ, Huisman HJ, et al. 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 2008; 43(10): 686-694.
36. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Hoeks C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. J Urol 2010; 183(2): 520-527.
37. Hoeks CM, Schouten MG, Bomers JG, et al. Three-Tesla magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy in men with increased pros-tate-specific antigen and repeated, negative, random, systematic, transrectal ultrasound biopsies: detection of clinically significant prostate cancers. Eur Urol 2012; 62(5): 902-909.
38. Roethke M, Anastasiadis AG, Lichy M, et al. MRI-guided prostate biopsy detects clinically significant cancer: analysis of a cohort of 100 patients after previous negative TRUS biopsy. World J Urol 2012; 30(2): 213-218.
39. Schwab SA, Kuefner MA, Adamietz B, et al. MRI-guided core biopsy of the prostate in the supine position: introduction of a sim-plified technique using large-bore magnet systems. Eur Radiol 2013; 23(5): 1415-1419.
40. Singh AK, Krieger A, Lattouf JB, et al. Patient selection determines the prostate cancer yield of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging-guided transrectal biopsies in a closed 3-Tesla scanner. BJU Int 2008; 101(2): 181-185.
41. Puech P, Rouvière O, Renard-Penna R, et al. Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparamet-ric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy-prospective multicenter study. Radiology 2013; 268(2): 461-469.
42. Haffner J, Lemaitre L, Puech P, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. BJU Int 2011; 108(8 Pt 2): E171-E178.
43. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong H, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core trans rectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol 2013; 64(5): 713-719.
44. Krieger A, Iordachita II, Guion P, et al. An MRI-compatible robotic system with hybrid tracking for MRI-guided prostate intervention. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2011; 58(11): 3049-3060.
45. Lange D, Zappavigna C, Hamidizadeh R, Goldenberg SL, Paterson RF, Chew BH. Bacterial sepsis after prostate biopsy: a new perspective. Urology 2009; 74(6): 1200-1205.
46. Zaytoun OM, Vargo EH, Rajan R, Berglund R, Gordon S, Jones JS. Emergence of flu-oroquinolone-resistant Escherichia coli as cause of postprostate biopsy infection: implications for prophylaxis and treatment. Urology 2011; 77(5): 1035-1041.
47. Djavan B, Waldert M, Zlotta A, 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 2001; 166(3): 856-860.
48. Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI, Ricker W, Schaeffer EM. Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol 2011; 186(5): 1830-1834.
49. Symons JL, Huo A, Yuen CL, et al. Outcomes of transperineal template-guided prostate biopsy in 409 patients. BJU Int 2013; 112(5): 585-593.
50. Satoh T, Matsumoto K, Fujita T, et al. Cancer core distribution in patients diagnosed by extended transperineal prostate biopsy. Urology 2005; 66(1): 114-118.