First round of targeted biopsies using magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion compared with conventional transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsies for the diagnosis of localised prostate cancer

BJU International

Volumn 115, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 50-57

  Mozer, Pierre ^a,c   Rouprêt, Morgan ^a,c   Le Cossec, Chloé ^b   Granger, Benjamin ^b   Comperat, Eva ^b   De Gorski, Arachk ^a   Cussenot, Olivier ^a,c   Renard Penna, Raphaële ^b  

^a ASSISTANCE PUBLIQUE HÔPITAUX DE PARIS   (France)

^b PITIÉ SALPÊTRIÈRE HOSPITAL   (France)

^c SORBONNE UNIVERSITÉ   (France)

Author keywords

biopsy; Gleason score; MRI; prostate neoplasms; prostate specific antigen

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; IMAGE GUIDED BIOPSY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LIKERT SCALE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROTEIN BLOOD LEVEL; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; ULTRASOUND SCANNER; ULTRASOUND TRANSDUCER; CANCER GRADING; ECHOGRAPHY; ENDOSCOPIC ECHOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

AGED; HUMANS; IMAGE-GUIDED BIOPSY; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM GRADING; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, INTERVENTIONAL;

EID: 84924152274     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bju.12690     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A,. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin 2013; 63: 11-30
2. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL, 3rd, et al. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 1310-1319
3. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 1977-1984
4. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 61-71
5. Salomon L, Colombel M, Patard JJ, et al. Value of ultrasound-guided systematic sextant biopsies in prostate tumor mapping. Eur Urol 1999; 35: 289-293
6. Berg KD, Toft BG, Roder MA, et al. Is it possible to predict low-volume and insignificant prostate cancer by core needle biopsies? APMIS 2013; 121: 257-265
7. Washington SL, Bonham M, Whitson JM, et al. Transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy does not reliably identify dominant cancer location in men with low-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012; 110: 50-55
8. Belas O, Hupertan V, Comperat E, et al. Low accuracy of routine ultrasound-guided systematic 12-core biopsies in prostate tumor mapping. Can J Urol 2012; 19: 6366-6372
9. Li YH, Elshafei A, Li J, et al. Transrectal saturation technique may improve cancer detection as an initial prostate biopsy strategy in men with prostate-specific antigen <10 ng/ml. Eur Urol 2013; doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.047
10. Irani J, Blanchet P, Salomon L, et al. Is an extended 20-core prostate biopsy protocol more efficient than the standard 12-core? A randomized multicenter trial. J Urol 2013; 190: 77-83
11. Ferro M, Bruzzese D, Perdona S, et al. Prostate Health Index (Phi) and Prostate Cancer Antigen 3 (PCA3) significantly improve prostate cancer detection at initial biopsy in a total PSA range of 2-10 ng/ml. PLoS ONE 2013; 8: e67687
12. Tomlins SA, Aubin SM, Siddiqui J, et al. Urine TMPRSS2:ERG fusion transcript stratifies prostate cancer risk in men with elevated serum PSA. Sci Transl Med 2011; 3: 94ra72
13. Emberton M,. Has Magnetic Resonance-Guided Biopsy of the Prostate Become the Standard of Care? Eur Urol 2013; 64: 720-721
14. 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
15. Vos EK, Litjens GJ, Kobus T, et al. Assessment of Prostate Cancer Aggressiveness Using Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging at 3 T. Eur Urol 2013; 64: 448-455
16. Delongchamps NB, Peyromaure M, Schull A, et al. Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer detection: comparison of random and targeted biopsies. J Urol 2013; 189: 493-499
17. Fiard G, Hohn N, Descotes JL, et al. Targeted MRI-guided prostate biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer: initial clinical experience with real-time 3-dimensional transrectal ultrasound guidance and magnetic resonance/transrectal ultrasound image fusion. Urology 2013; 81: 1372-1378
18. Sonn GA, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, et al. Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion device. J Urol 2013; 189: 86-91
19. 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: 2152-2157
20. 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
21. Puech P, Rouviere O, Renard-Penna R, et al. Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy-prospective multicenter study. Radiology 2013; 268: 461-469
22. Renard-Penna R, Roupret M, Comperat E, et al. Accuracy of high resolution (1.5 tesla) pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in staging prostate cancer in candidates for radical prostatectomy: results from a prospective study. Urol Oncol 2013; 31: 448-454
23. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 477-494
24. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 746-757
25. Portalez D, Mozer P, Cornud F, et al. Validation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in a cohort of repeat biopsy patients. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 986-996
26. Baumann M, Mozer P, Daanen V, et al. Prostate biopsy tracking with deformation estimation. Med Image Anal 2012; 16: 562-576
27. Harnden P, Naylor B, Shelley MD, et al. The clinical management of patients with a small volume of prostatic cancer on biopsy: what are the risks of progression? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer 2008; 112: 971-981
28. Ploussard G, Salomon L, Xylinas E, et al. Pathological findings and prostate specific antigen outcomes after radical prostatectomy in men eligible for active surveillance-does the risk of misclassification vary according to biopsy criteria? J Urol 2010; 183: 539-544
29. Abdollah F, Scattoni V, Raber M, et al. The role of transrectal saturation biopsy in tumour localization: pathological correlation after retropubic radical prostatectomy and implication for focal ablative therapy. BJU Int 2011; 108: 366-371
30. Metcalfe C, Tilling K, Davis M, et al. Current strategies for monitoring men with localised prostate cancer lack a strong evidence base: observational longitudinal study. Br J Cancer 2009; 101: 390-394
31. 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. Eur Urol 2013; 64: 713-719
32. Mozer P, Baumann M, Chevreau G, et al. Mapping of transrectal ultrasonographic prostate biopsies: quality control and learning curve assessment by image processing. J Ultrasound Med 2009; 28: 455-460
33. de Rooij M, Crienen S, Witjes JA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of Magnetic Resonance (MR) imaging and MR-guided targeted biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in diagnosing prostate cancer: a modelling study from a health care perspective. Eur Urol 2013; doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.012