Effect of targeted biopsy guided by elastic image fusion of MRI with 3D-TRUS on diagnosis of anterior prostate cancer

Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations

Volumn 32, Issue 8, 2014, Pages 1300-1307

  Baco, Eduard ^a   Rud, Erik ^b   Ukimura, Osamu ^a   Vlatkovic, Ljiljana ^c   Svindland, Aud ^c   Matsugasumi, Toru ^a   Bernhard, Jean Christophe ^d   Rewcastle, John C ^a   Eggesbø, Heidi B ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b AKER UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^c OSLO UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^d BORDEAUX UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

^e OSLO UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

Author keywords

Clinically significant prostate cancer; Elastic image fusion; Magnetic resonance imaging; Targeted prostate biopsy; Transrectal ultrasound

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANTERIOR PROSTATE CANCER; ARTICLE; CANCER CORE INVOLVEMENT; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SIZE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; GLEASON SCORE; HUMAN; IMAGE GUIDED BIOPSY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MAXIMUM CANCER CORE LENGTH; MIDDLE AGED; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; ONCOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE IMAGING REPORTING AND DATA SYSTEM; PROSTATECTOMY; TARGETED BIOPSY; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; ULTRASOUND SCANNER; VERY ELDERLY; BIOPSY; CASE REPORT; ECHOGRAPHY; HIGH INTENSITY FOCUSED ULTRASOUND; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; QUALITY CONTROL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY;

AGED; BIOPSY; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; QUALITY CONTROL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ULTRASOUND, HIGH-INTENSITY FOCUSED, TRANSRECTAL;

EID: 84925853758     PISSN: 10781439     EISSN: 18732496     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.07.014     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Mygatt J., Sesterhenn I., Rosner I., et al. Anterior tumors of the prostate: clinicopathological features and outcomes. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2014, 17:75-80. [2013;17:75-80].
2. Bott S.R.J., Young M.P.A., Kellett M.J., et al. Anterior prostate cancer: is it more difficult to diagnose?. BJU Int 2002, 89:886-889.
3. Koppie T.M., Bianco F.J., Kuroiwa K., et al. The clinical features of anterior prostate cancers. BJU Int 2006, 98:1167-1171.
4. Ukimura O., Coleman J.A., de la Taille A., et al. Contemporary role of systematic prostate biopsies: indications, techniques, and implications for patient care. Eur Urol 2013, 63:214-230.
5. Pelzer A.E., Heinzelbecker J., Weiß C., et al. Real-time sonoelastography compared to magnetic resonance imaging using four different modalities at 3.0 T in the detection of prostate cancer: strength and weaknesses. Eur J Radiol 2013, 82:814-821.
6. 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.
7. Rud E., Baco E., Eggesbø H.B. MRI and ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy using soft image fusion. Anticancer Res 2012, 32:3383-3389.
8. Delongchamps N.B., 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.
9. Fiard G., Hohn N., Descotes J.-L., 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.
10. Dickinson L., Ahmed H.U., 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.
11. Moore C.M., 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.
12. Barentsz J.O., Richenberg J., Clements R., et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012, 22:746-757.
13. Rud E., Klotz D., Rennesund K., et al. T2w and DW MRI alone. BJU Int 2014, [Epub ahead of print]. 10.1111/bju.12637.
14. Baumann M., Mozer P., Daanen V., et al. Prostate biopsy tracking with deformation estimation. Med Image Anal 2012, 16:562-576.
15. van der Kwast T.H., Amin M.B., Billis A., et al. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. Working group 2: T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume. Mod Pathol 2010, 24:16-25.
16. Ahmed H.U., Hu Y., Carter T., et al. Characterizing clinically significant prostate cancer using template prostate mapping biopsy. J Urol 2011, 186:458-464.
17. Ukimura O., Desai M.M., Palmer S., et al. 3-Dimensional elastic registration system of prostate biopsy location by real-time 3-dimensional transrectal ultrasound guidance with magnetic resonance/transrectal ultrasound image fusion. J Urol 2012, 187:1080-1086.
18. Cornud F., Brolis L., Delongchamps N.B., et al. TRUS-MRI image registration: a paradigm shift in the diagnosis of significant prostate cancer. Abdom Imaging 2013, 38:1447-1463.
19. Bouyé S., Potiron E., Puech P., et al. Transition zone and anterior stromal prostate cancers: zone of origin and intraprostatic patterns of spread at histopathology. Prostate 2009, 69:105-113.
20. Lecornet E., Ahmed H.U., Hu Y., et al. The accuracy of different biopsy strategies for the detection of clinically important prostate cancer: a computer simulation. J Urol 2012, 188:974-980.
21. Ukimura O., de Castro Abreu A.L., Gill I.S., et al. Image visibility of cancer to enhance targeting precision and spatial mapping biopsy for focal therapy of prostate cancer. BJU Int 2013, 111:E354-E364.
22. Hoeks C.M., Hambrock M., Yakar M., et al. Transition zone prostate cancer: detection and localization with 3-T multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology 2012, 266:207-217.
23. Muller B., van den Bos W., Brausi M., et al. The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in focal therapy for prostate cancer: a Delphi consensus project. BJU Int 2013, [Epub ahead of print]. 10.1111/bju.12548.
24. Pinto P.A., Chung P.H., Rastinehad A.R., 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.
25. Siddiqui M.M., 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.
26. Wysock J.S., Rosenkrantz A.B., Huang W.C., 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.
27. Diaz A.W., Hoang A.N., Turkbey B., et al. Can magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy improve cancer detection in enlarged prostates?. J Urol 2013, 190:2020-2025.
28. 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.
29. Kvåle R., Møller B., Wahlqvist R., et al. Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population-based study. BJU Int 2009, 103:1647-1654.