The prognostic value of repeated prostate fusion biopsy
https://doi.org/10.17650/1726-9776-2017-13-3-71-75
Abstract
Objective – disclosure of the main advantages of prostate biopsy under the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) control, consideration of technical aspects of its implementation.
Materials and methods. Advances in multiparametric MRI have lead to improved detection of prostate tumors. The fusion of MRI data with transrectal ultrasound enables the targeted biopsy of suspicious areas. The results of fusion-biopsy were analyzed in 38 patients. The mean age of patients was 61.3 (44–70) years. All the patients underwent at least 1 transrectal prostate biopsies. The average number of biopsy cores was 24.3 (17–30), the average value of total prostate-specific antigen before saturation biopsy was 10,4 (0.20 to 34.16) ng/ml.
Results. Prostate cancer was diagnosed in 52.7 % of cases (20/38). Better prostate cancer detectability during repeated saturation biopsy generally occurred due to the localized forms of the disease (93.3 %).
Conclusion. Fusion biopsy allows prediction of a pathological stage of prostate cancer, Gleason grade of a tumor and its site localization with a greaterprobability. Most tumors detectable by saturation biopsy were clinically significant, which makes it possible to recommend fusion biopsy to some cohort of high prostate cancer risk patients.
About the Authors
A V Zyryanov
Regional Urological center, МSP "Neftyanik", Department of Oncourological
Russian Federation
Competing Interests: nothing to declare
Russian Federation
Head of Department Oncourology at Regional Urological center, МSP "Neftyanik", Tyumen
Build 1, 8 Yuriya Semovskikh St., Tyumen’ 625000, Russia
Competing Interests: nothing to declare
A a Keln
Regional Urological center, МSP "Neftyanik", Department of Oncourological
Russian Federation
Competing Interests: nothing to declare
Russian Federation
Surgeon at Regional Urological center, МSP "Neftyanik", Department of Oncourological, Tyumen
Build 1, 8 Yuriya Semovskikh St., Tyumen’ 625000, Russia
Competing Interests: nothing to declare
A. S. Surikov
Regional Urological Center “Neftyanik”
Build 1, 8 Yuriya Semovskikh St., Tyumen’ 625000, Russia
Build 1, 8 Yuriya Semovskikh St., Tyumen’ 625000, Russia
A. V. Ponomarev
Regional Urological Center “Neftyanik”
Build 1, 8 Yuriya Semovskikh St., Tyumen’ 625000, Russia
Build 1, 8 Yuriya Semovskikh St., Tyumen’ 625000, Russia
A. V. Kupchin
Regional Urological Center “Neftyanik”
Build 1, 8 Yuriya Semovskikh St., Tyumen’ 625000, Russia
Build 1, 8 Yuriya Semovskikh St., Tyumen’ 625000, Russia
A. V. Lebedev
Regional Urological Center “Neftyanik”
Build 1, 8 Yuriya Semovskikh St., Tyumen’ 625000, Russia
Build 1, 8 Yuriya Semovskikh St., Tyumen’ 625000, Russia
I. B. Popov
Regional Urological Center “Neftyanik”
Build 1, 8 Yuriya Semovskikh St., Tyumen’ 625000, Russia
Build 1, 8 Yuriya Semovskikh St., Tyumen’ 625000, Russia
References
1. Злокачественные новообразования в России в 2015 году (заболеваемость и смертность). Под ред. А. Д. Каприна, В. В. Старинского, Г. В. Петровой. М.: МНИОИ им. П. А. Герцена – филиал ФГБУ «НМИРЦ» Минздрава России, 2017. 250 с. [Malignant tumors in Russia in 2015 (morbidity and fatality). Eds.: А. D. Kaprin, V. V. Starinskiy, G. V. Petrova. Moscow: MNIOI im. P. A. Gertsena – filial FGBU “NMIRTS” Minzdrava Rossii, 2017. 250 p. (In Russ.)].
2. Latifoltojar A., Dikaios N., Ridout A. et al. Evolution of multi-parametric MRI quantitative parameters following transrectal ultrasound- guided biopsy ofthe prostate. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2015;18(4):343–51.
3. Vargas H. A., Hötker A. M., Goldman D. A. et al. Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADSv2) 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):1606–12. DOI: 10.1007/s00330- 015-4015-6. PMID: 26396111.
4. Зырянов А. В., Пономарев А. В., Кельн А. А. и др. Таргетная биопсия предстательной железы под fusion-МРТ-УЗ контролем. Вестник Российского научного центра рентгенрадиологии Минздрава России 2016;16(4). [Zyryanov A. V., Ponomarev A. V., Kel’n A.A. et al. Target biopsy of the prostate gland under fusion MRT-US control. Vestnuk Rossiyskogo nauchnogo tsentra rentgenradiologii Minzdrava Rossii = Bulletin of the Russian Research Center of X-ray Radiology of the Ministry of Health of Russia 2016;16(4). (In Russ.)].
5. Le J. D., Huang J., Marks L. S. Targeted prostate biopsy: value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in detection of localized cancer Asian J Androl 2014;16(4):522– 9. DOI: 10.4103/1008-682X.122864. PMID: 24589455.
6. Somford D. M., Hamoen E. H., Futterer J. J. et al. The predictive value of endorectal 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for extraprostatic extension in patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2013;190(5):1728–34. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.021. PMID: 23680307.
7. Ren J., Yang Y., Zhang J. et al. T(2) – weighted combined with diffusion-weighted images for evaluating prostatic transition zone tumors at 3 Tesla. Future Oncol 2013;9(4):585–93. DOI:10.2217/fon.13.14. PMID: 23560380.
8. Akin O., Sala E., Moskowitz C. S. et al. Transition zone prostate cancers: features, detection, localization, and staging at endorectal MR imaging. Radiology 2006;239(3):784– 92. DOI: 10.1148/radiol. 2392050949. PMID: 16569788.
9. Мищенко А. В., Рубцова Н. А., Алексеев Б. Я. и др. Система унифицированного подхода к интерпретации магнитно-резонансной томографии предстательной железы согласно руководству PI-RADSv2. Онкоурология 2016;12(1):81–9. [Mishchenko A. V., Rubtsova N. A., Alekseev B. Ya. et al. A system of a unified approach to interpreting prostate magnetic resonance imaging according to the PI-RADSv2 guidelines. Onkourologiya = Cancer Urology 2016;12(1):81–9. (In Russ.)]. DOI: 10.17650/1726-9776-2016-12-1-81-89.
10. D’Amico A. V., Tempany C. M., Cormack R. et al. Transperineal magnetic resonance image guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 2000;164(2):385–7. PMID: 10893591.
11. Boesen L., Noergaard N., Chabanova E. et al. Early experience with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsies under visual transrectal ultrasound guidance in patients suspicious for prostate cancer undergoing repeated biopsy. Scand J Urol 2015;49(1):25–34. DOI: 10.3109/21681805.2014.925497. PMID: 24922550.
12. Cool D. W., Zhang X., Romagnoli C. et al. Evaluation of MRI-TRUS fusion versus cognitive registration accuracy for MRI-targeted, TRUS-guided prostatebiopsy. AJR 2015;204(1):83– 91. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.14.12681. PMID: 25539241.
13. Salami S. S., Ben-Levi E., Yaskiv O. et al. 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 2015;115(4):562–70. DOI: 10.1111/bju.12938. PMID: 25252133.
14. Penzkofer T., Tuncali K., Fedorov A. et al. Transperineal in-bore 3-T MR imagingguided prostate biopsy: a prospective clinical observational study. Radiology 2015;274(1):170–80. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14140221. PMID: 25222067.
15. De Gorski A., Mozer P., Rouprêt M. et al. En cas de premiére série de biopsies de prostate, les biopsies prostatiques ciblées par voie transréctale avec fusion écho/IRM ont un meilleur rendement que les biopsies standard pour la détection de cancer significatif dans les prostates >40 mL. Progrès en Urologie 2014;11:108.
16. Diaz W. A., Hoang A. N., Turkbey B. Can agnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy improve cancer detection in enlarged prostates? J Urol 2015;193(4):1444–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.10.122. PMID: 25582380.
17. Matsuoka Y., Numao N., Saito K. Combination of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and extended prostate biopsy predicts lobes without significant cancer: application in patient selection for hemiablative focal therapy. Eur Urol 2014;65(1):186–92. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.10.010. PMID: 23084330.
18. Rosenkrantz A. B., Verma S., Choyke P. et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a prior negative biopsy: a consensus statement by AUA and SAR. J Urol 2016;196(6):1613–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.079. PMID: 27320841.
19. Mendhiratta N., Meng X., Rosenkrantz A. B. et al. Pre-biopsy MRI and MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy in men with previous negative biopsies: impact on repeat biopsy strategies. Urology 2015;31. PMID: 26335497.
20. 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;23. PMID: 26116294.
21. Rosenkrantz A. B., Verma S., Choyke P. et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a prior negative biopsy: a consensus statement of the american urological association and the society of abdominal radiology’s prostate cancer disease focused panel. J Urol 2016;16.
22. Sonn G. A., 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 2014;65(4):809–15. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.025. PMID: 23523537.
Review
For citations:
Zyryanov A.V., Keln A.a., Surikov A.S., Ponomarev A.V., Kupchin A.V., Lebedev A.V., Popov I.B. The prognostic value of repeated prostate fusion biopsy. Cancer Urology. 2017;13(3):71-75. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17650/1726-9776-2017-13-3-71-75
Views:
800
Email this article 