In-bore 3-T MR-guided transrectal targeted prostate biopsy: Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2-based diagnostic performance for detection of prostate cancer

Radiology

Volumn 283, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 130-139

  Tan, Nelly ^a   Lin, Wei Chan ^a,b,c   Khoshnoodi, Pooria ^a   Asvadi, Nazanin H ^a   Yoshida, Jeffrey ^d   Margolis, Daniel J A ^a   Lu, David S K ^a   Wu, Holden ^a   Sung, Kyung Hyun ^a   Lu, David Y ^a,d   Huang, Jaioti ^a   Raman, Steven S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b CATHAY GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Taiwan)

^c FU JEN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^d Hoag Hospital   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROSTATE SPECIFIC ANTIGEN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOPSY DEVICE; CLINICAL EXAMINATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT; GLEASON SCORE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE GUIDED BIOPSY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NEEDLE GUIDE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE IMAGING REPORTING AND DATA SYSTEM VERSION 1; PROSTATE IMAGING REPORTING AND DATA SYSTEM VERSION 2; PROSTATE SIZE; PROTEIN BLOOD LEVEL; SCORING SYSTEM; UROSEPSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATE; PROSTATE TUMOR; RADIOLOGY INFORMATION SYSTEM; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REPRODUCIBILITY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY;

ADULT; AGED; HUMANS; IMAGE-GUIDED BIOPSY; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; RADIOLOGY INFORMATION SYSTEMS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ROC CURVE;

EID: 85017192396     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016152827     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. American Cancer Society. Key statistics for prostate cancer. http://www.cancer.org/cancer/prostatecancer/detailedguide/prostate-cancer-key-statistics. Published 2015. Accessed April 29, 2016.
2. American Urological Association. Early Detection of Prostate Cancer. AUA Guidelines. https://www.auanet.org/education/guidelines/prostate-cancer-detection.cfm. Published DATE. Accessed April 28, 2016.
3. Barentsz JO. A global standard for prostate MRI reporting [abstr]. In: Radiological Society of North America Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting Program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2013; 73.
4. McClure TD, Margolis DJ, Reiter RE, et al. Use of MR imaging to determine preservation of the neurovascular bundles at roboticassisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Radiology 2012;262(3):874-883.
5. Tan N, Margolis DJ, McClure TD, et al. Radical prostatectomy: value of prostate MRI in surgical planning. Abdom Imaging 2012; 37(4):664-674.
6. 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.
7. Rosenkrantz AB, Oto A, Turkbey B, Westphalen AC. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), version 2: a critical look. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016;206(6): 1179-1183.
8. American College of Radiology. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.0. American College of Radiology website. http://www.acr.org/~/media/ACR/Documents/PDF/QualitySafety/Resources/PIRADS/PIRADS%20V2.pdf. Published December 2015. Accessed April 24, 2016.
9. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22(4):746-757.
10. Quentin M, Blondin D, Arsov C, et al. Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging guided in-bore prostate biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in biopsy naïve men with elevated prostate specific antigen. J Urol 2014; 192(5):1374-1379.
11. Franiel T, Stephan C, Erbersdobler A, et al. Areas suspicious for prostate cancer: MRguided 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.
12. Engelhard K, Hollenbach HP, Kiefer B, Winkel A, Goeb K, Engehausen D. Prostate biopsy in the supine position in a standard 1.5-T scanner under real time MR-imaging control using a MR-compatible endorectal biopsy device. Eur Radiol 2006;16(6):1237-1243.
13. Kasel-Seibert M, Lehmann T, Aschenbach R, et al. Assessment of PI-RADS v2 for the Detection of Prostate Cancer. Eur J Radiol 2016;85(4):726-731.
14. Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Blondin D, et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided in-bore biopsy to MRI-ultrasound fusion and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol 2015;68(4):713-720.
15. Da Rosa MR, Milot L, Sugar L, et al. A prospective comparison of MRI-US fused targeted biopsy versus systematic ultrasound-guided biopsy for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in patients on active surveillance. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015;41(1): 220-225.
16. Hamoen EH, de Rooij M, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Use of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) for prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2015;67(6):1112-1121.
17. Junker D, Schäfer G, Edlinger M, et al. Evaluation of the PI-RADS scoring system for classifying mpMRI findings in men with suspicion of prostate cancer. BioMed Res Int 2013;2013:252939.
18. Shariat SF, Roehrborn CG. Using biopsy to detect prostate cancer. Rev Urol 2008;10(4): 262-280.
19. Vargas HA, Hötker AM, Goldman DA, et al. Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference. Eur Radiol 2016; 26(6):1606-1612.
20. Turkbey B, Mani H, Aras O, et al. Correlation of magnetic resonance imaging tumor volume with histopathology. J Urol 2012;188(4):1157-1163.
21. Khoshnoodi P, Tan N, Margolis DJ, et al. Correlation between diameter of prostate cancer foci on multiparametric prostate MRI and whole mount histopathology: stratified by PI-RADS and Gleason score [abstr]. J Urol 2015;193(4 Suppl):e900-e901.
22. Cash H, Maxeiner A, Stephan C, et al. The detection of significant prostate cancer is correlated with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) in MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. World J Urol 2016;34(4):525-532.
23. Mertan FV, Greer MD, Shih JH, et al. Prospective evaluation of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 for prostate cancer detection. J Urol 2016;196(3): 690-696.