In patients with a previous negative prostate biopsy and a suspicious lesion on magnetic resonance imaging, is a 12-core biopsy still necessary in addition to a targeted biopsy?

BJU International

Volumn 115, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 562-570

  Salami, Simpa S ^a   Ben Levi, Eran ^a   Yaskiv, Oksana ^a   Ryniker, Laura ^a   Turkbey, Baris ^b   Kavoussi, Louis R ^a   Villani, Robert ^a   Rastinehad, Ardeshir R ^a  

^a DONALD AND BARBARA ZUCKER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT HOFSTRA NORTHWELL   (United States)

^b NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

false negative prostate biopsy; negative prostate biopsy; prostate cancer screening; prostate fusion biopsy; prostate imaging

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

12 CORE PROSTATE BIOPSY; ADULT; AFRICAN AMERICAN; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT; DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FAMILY HISTORY; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; IMAGE GUIDED BIOPSY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE FUSION BIOPSY; PROTEIN BLOOD LEVEL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RISK ASSESSMENT; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; BIOPSY; DEVICES; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

AGED; BIOPSY; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; ROC CURVE;

EID: 84925652118     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bju.12938     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Roehl KA, Antenor JA, Catalona WJ,. Serial biopsy results in prostate cancer screening study. J Urol 2002; 167: 2435-2439
2. Marks LS, Fradet Y, Deras IL, et al. PCA3 molecular urine assay for prostate cancer in men undergoing repeat biopsy. Urology 2007; 69: 532-535
3. Haese A, la Taille de A, van Poppel H, et al. Clinical utility of the PCA3 urine assay in European men scheduled for repeat biopsy. Eur Urol 2008; 54: 1081-1088
4. Thompson IM, Ankerst DP, Chi C, et al. Assessing prostate cancer risk: results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98: 529-534
5. Djavan B, Zlotta A, Remzi M, et al. Optimal predictors of prostate cancer on repeat prostate biopsy: a prospective study of 1,051 men. J Urol 2000; 163: 1144-1149
6. Garzotto M, Park Y, Mongoue-Tchokote S, et al. Recursive partitioning for risk stratification in men undergoing repeat prostate biopsies. Cancer 2005; 104: 1911-1917
7. 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. Edited byAW Lo. PLoS ONE 2013; 8: e57480
8. Fleshner NE, O'Sullivan M, Fair WR,. Prevalence and predictors of a positive repeat transrectal ultrasound guided needle biopsy of the prostate. J Urol 1997; 158: 505-509
9. Zaytoun OM, Jones JS,. Prostate cancer detection after a negative prostate biopsy: lessons learnt in the Cleveland Clinic experience. Int J Urol 2011; 18: 557-568
10. 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
11. Rastinehad AR, Turkbey B, Salami SS, et al. Improving detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 2014; 191: 1749-1754
12. Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, et al. A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS Trial. Eur Urol 2013; 66: 343-351
13. Abd-Alazeez M, Ahmed HU, Arya M, et al. The accuracy of multiparametric MRI in men with negative biopsy and elevated PSA level-can it rule out clinically significant prostate cancer? Urol Oncol 2014; 32: 45.e17-22
14. 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
15. Carter HB, Albertsen PC, Barry MJ, et al. Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA Guideline. J Urol 2013; 190: 419-426
16. Graham J, Kirkbride P, Cann K, Hasler E, Prettyjohns M,. Prostate cancer: summary of updated NICE guidance. BMJ 2014; 348: f7524
17. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 746-757
18. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB,. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994; 271: 368-374
19. Ma X, Wang R, Long JB, et al. The cost implications of prostate cancer screening in the Medicare population. Cancer 2014; 120: 96-102
20. Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI, Ricker W, Schaeffer EM,. Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol 2011; 186: 1830-1834
21. Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y, et al. Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 2013; 189: S12-18
22. Catalona WJ, Partin AW, Slawin KM, et al. Use of the percentage of free prostate-specific antigen to enhance differentiation of prostate cancer from benign prostatic disease: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. JAMA 1998; 279: 1542-1547
23. Salami SS, Schmidt F, Laxman B, et al. Combining urinary detection of TMPRSS2:ERG and PCA3 with serum PSA to predict diagnosis of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2013; 31: 566-571
24. Andriole GL, Bostwick D, Brawley OW, et al. The effect of dutasteride on the usefulness of prostate specific antigen for the diagnosis of high grade and clinically relevant prostate cancer in men with a previous negative biopsy: results from the REDUCE study. J Urol 2011; 185: 126-131
25. Aubin SM, Reid J, Sarno MJ, et al. PCA3 molecular urine test for predicting repeat prostate biopsy outcome in populations at risk: validation in the placebo arm of the dutasteride REDUCE trial. J Urol 2010; 184: 1947-1952
26. McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA,. Zonal distribution of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Correlation with histologic pattern and direction of spread. Am J Surg Pathol 1988; 12: 897-906
27. Rastinehad AR, Baccala AA, Chung PH, et al. D'Amico risk stratification correlates with degree of suspicion of prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 2011; 185: 815-820
28. Salami SS, Vira MA, Turkbey B, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging outperforms the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator in predicting clinically significant prostate cancer. Cancer 2014; 120: 2876-2882
29. 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
30. Kuru TH, Saeb-Parsy K, Cantiani A, et al. Evolution of repeat prostate biopsy strategies incorporating transperineal and MRI-TRUS fusion techniques. World J Urol 2014; 32: 945-950
31. Radtke JP, Kuru TH, Boxler S, et al. Comparative analysis of transperineal template-saturation prostate biopsy versus MRI-targeted biopsy with MRI-US fusion-guidance. J Urol 2014; [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.07.098
32. Gaziev G, Wadhwa K, Barrett T, et al. Defining the Learning Curve for multi-parametric MRI of the prostate using MRI-TRUS fusion guided transperineal prostate biopsies as a validation tool. BJU Int 2014; [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1111/bju.12892