Using multiparametric MRI to 'personalize' biopsy for men

Current Opinion in Urology

Volumn 25, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 498-503

  Mendhiratta, Neil ^a   Meng, Xiaosong ^b   Taneja, Samir S ^a,b  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

MRI US fusion; Multiparametric MRI; Prostate biopsy; Prostate cancer; Prostate MRI

Indexed keywords

CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER GRADING; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; IMAGE GUIDED BIOPSY; MALE; MULTIPARAMETRIC MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; REVIEW; BIOPSY; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK FACTOR; WATCHFUL WAITING;

BIOPSY; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; NEOPLASM GRADING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RISK FACTORS; WATCHFUL WAITING;

EID: 84943179554     PISSN: 09630643     EISSN: 14736586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000216     Document Type: Review

References (36)

1. Applewhite JC, Matlaga BR, McCullough DL. Results of the 5 region prostate biopsy method: the repeat biopsy population. J Urol 2002; 168:500-503.
2. Taira AV, Merrick GS, Galbreath RW, et al. Performance of transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy in detecting prostate cancer in the initial and repeat biopsy setting. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2010; 13:71-77.
3. Bjurlin MA, Meng X, Le Nobin J, et al. Optimization of prostate biopsy: the role of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in detection, localization and risk assessment. J Urol 2014; 192:648-658.
4. Bjurlin MA, Carter HB, Schellhammer P, et al. Optimization of initial prostate biopsy in clinical practice: sampling, labeling and specimen processing. J Urol 2013; 189:2039-2046.
5. Abraham NE, Mendhiratta N, Taneja SS. Patterns of repeat prostate biopsy utilization in contemporary clinical practice. J Urol 2015; 193:1178-1184. http://www.jurology.com/article/S0022-5347(14)04704-1/Abstract.
6. Ehdaie B, Vertosick E, Spaliviero M, et al. The impact of repeat biopsies on infectious complications in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. J Urol 2014; 191:660-664.
7. Rosenkrantz AB, Lim RP, Haghighi M, et al. Comparison of interreader reproducibility of the prostate imaging reporting and data system and likert scales for evaluation of multiparametric prostate MRI. Am J Roentgenol 2013; 201:W612-W618.
8. Turkbey B, Mani H, Shah V, et al. Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. J Urol 2011; 186:1818-1824.
9. Valerio M, Donaldson I, Emberton M, et al. Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion tar geted biopsy: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2015; 68:8-19.
10. Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2015; 68:438-450.
11. Siddiqui M, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, Al E. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 2015; 313:390-397.
12. Baco E, Rud E, Eri LM, et al. A randomized controlled trial to assess and compare the outcomes of two-core prostate biopsy guided by fused magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound images and traditional 12-core sys tematic biopsy. Eur Urol. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0302283815002729. [Accessed 1st May 2015]
13. Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, Mendhiratta N, et al. Relationship Between Pre-biopsy Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Biopsy Indication and MRI-ultrasound Fusion-Targeted Prostate Biopsy Outcomes. Eur Urol 2015. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.005.
14. Sonn GA, Chang E, Natarajan S, et al. Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Eur Urol 2015; 65:809-815.
15. Salami SS, Ben-Levi E, Yaskiv O, et al. In patients with a previous negative prostate biopsy and a suspicious lesion on MRI, is a 12-core biopsy still necessary in addition to a targeted biopsy? BJU Int 2015; 115:562-570.
16. Mendhiratta N, Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, et al. Pre-Biopsy MRI and MRI-Ultrasound Fusion-Targeted Prostate Biopsy in Men with Previous Negative Biopsies: Impact on Repeat Biopsy Strategies. Urology. doi:http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.
17. Mufarrij P, Sankin A, Godoy G, Lepor H. Pathologic outcomes of candidates for active surveillance undergoing radical prostatectomy. Urology 2010; 76:689-692.
18. Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Makarov DV, et al. Five-year nationwide follow-up study of active surveillance for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2015; 67:233-238; http:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0302283814005314.
19. Stamatakis L, Siddiqui MM, Nix JW, et al. Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer. Cancer 2013; 119:3359-3366.
20. Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, Mendhiratta N, et al. Outcomes of MRI-US fusion targeted biopsy in the risk stratification of active surveillance candidates. J Urol 2015; 193:e754-e755.
21. Tosoian JJ, Trock B J, Landis P, et al. Active surveillance program for prostate cancer: an update of the Johns Hopkins experience. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29:2185-2190.
22. Porten SP, Whitson JM, Cowan JE, etal. Changes inprostate cancer grade on serial biopsy in men undergoing active surveillance. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29:2795-2800.
23. Bul M, Zhu X, Rannikko A, et al. Radical prostatectomy for low-risk prostate cancer following initial active surveillance: Results from a prospective observational study. Eur Urol 2012; 62:195-200.
24. 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 (8b):E171-E178.
25. 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.
26. Mozer P, Rouprêt M, Le Cossec C, et al. 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 Int 2015; 115:50-57.
27. Pokorny MR, de Rooij M, Duncan E, et al. Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. Eur Urol 2014; 66:22-29.
28. Mendhiratta N, Rosenkrantz AB, Meng X, et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Prostate Biopsy in a Consecutive Cohort of Men with No Previous Biopsy: Reduction of Over Detection through Improved Risk Stratification. J Urol 2015. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2015.06.078.
29. Mendhiratta N, Rosenkrantz AB, Meng X, et al. Outcomes of MRI-US fusion targeted prostate biopsy in men without history of previous biopsy: reduction of over-detection and improved risk stratification. J Urol 2015; 193:e998-e999.
30. Kuru TH, Roethke M C, Rieker P, et al. Histology core-specific evaluation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) standardised scoring system of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate. BJU Int 2013; 112:1080-1087.
31. 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.
32. Bjurlin MA, Wysock JS, Sakar S, et al. Prediction of overall and clinically significant cancer risk on MRI-targeted and systematic prostate biopsy using prebiopsy nomograms. J Urol 2015; 193:e1075-e1076.
33. Perdonà S, Di Lorenzo G, Autorino R, et al. Combined magnetic resonance spectroscopy and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging for prostate cancer detection. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig 2013; 31:761-765.
34. Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo G, et al. Prostate cancer detection at repeat biopsy: can pelvic phased-array multiparametric MRI replace saturation biopsy? Anticancer Res 2013; 33:1195-1199.
35. Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Meng X, et al. Predictive value of negative 3T multiparametric prostate MRIon 12core biopsy results. J Urol 2014; 191:e754.
36. Itatani R, Namimoto T, Atsuji S, et al. Negative predictive value of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: outcome of 5-year follow-up in men with negative findings on initial MRI studies. Eur J Radiol 2014; 83:1740-1745.