Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2020, 164(3):314-319 | DOI: 10.5507/bp.2019.050

Cancer detection rates and inter-examiner variability of MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy and systematic transrectal biopsy

Miroslav Zaleskya,b, Jiri Stejskala, Ivo Minarikc, Vanda Adamcovaa, Marek Babjukc, Roman Zachovala,b
a Department of Urology, Thomayer Hospital and 3rd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
b Department of Urology, 1
st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
c Department of Urology, 2
nd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, University Hospital Motol, Prague, Czech Republic

Background: Software-based MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy depends on the coordination of several steps, and inter-examiner differences could influence the results. The aim of this bicentric prospective study was to compare the detection rates of MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy (TG) and systematic biopsy (SB), and the detection rates of examiners with different levels of previous experience in prostate biopsy.

Methods: A total of 419 patients underwent MRI based on a suspicion of prostate cancer with elevated PSA levels. MRI was positive in 395 patients (221 in the first biopsy group [FB] and 174 in the repeated biopsy group [RB]). A subsequent TG, followed by a SB, was performed on these patients by four different examiners.

Results: In the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, a significant difference was found for TG+SB against SB in the RB group (35.1% vs. 25.3%, P=0.047). In the detection of clinically insignificant prostate cancer, the SB had a significantly higher detection rate than TG in both subgroups (FB: 11.9% vs. 4.7%, P=0.008; RB: 13.8% vs. 6.9%, P=0.034). A significant difference was found between the four examiners in the FB for TG (P=0.028), SB (P=0.036), and TG+SB (P=0.017).

Conclusion: MRI/TRUS TG in combination with SB had significantly higher detection rates than SB in the RB group only. Differences in detection rates between examiners were dependent on the level of previous experience with TRUS guided biopsy.

Keywords: biopsy, diagnostic imaging, fusion, magnetic resonance, prostate cancer

Received: March 26, 2019; Revised: September 21, 2019; Accepted: September 25, 2019; Prepublished online: October 10, 2019; Published: September 17, 2020  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Zalesky, M., Stejskal, J., Minarik, I., Adamcova, V., Babjuk, M., & Zachoval, R. (2020). Cancer detection rates and inter-examiner variability of MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy and systematic transrectal biopsy. Biomedical papers, 164(3), 314-319. doi: 10.5507/bp.2019.050
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, Fossati N, Gross T, Henry AM, Joniau S, Lam TB, Mason MD, Matveev VB, Moldovan PC, van den Bergh RCN, Van den Broeck T, van der Poel HG, van der Kwast TH, Rouviere O, Schoots IG, Wiegel T, Cornford P. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol 2017;71(4):618-29. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    2. Porpiglia F, Manfredi M, Mele F, Cossu M, Bollito E, Veltri A, Cirillo S, Regge D, Faletti R, Passera R, Fiori C, De Luca S. Diagnostic pathway with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging versus standard pathway: results from a randomized pro- spective study in biopsy-naive patients with suspected prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2017;72(2):282-8. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    3. Quentin M, Arsov C, Rohlen S, Klasen J, Antoch G, Albers P, Blondin D. Inter-reader agreement of multi-parametric MR imaging for the detection of prostate cancer: evaluation of a scoring system. Rofo 2012;184(10):925-9. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    4. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, Rouviere O, Logager V, Futterer JJ, European Society of Urogenital R. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22(4):746-57. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    5. 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(5):368-74. Go to original source...
    6. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George AK, Rothwax J, Shakir N, Okoro C, Raskolnikov D, Parnes HL, Linehan WM, Merino MJ, Simon RM, Choyke PL, Wood BJ, Pinto PA. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 2015;313(4):390-7. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    7. Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MG. 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(3):438-50. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    8. van Hove A, Savoie PH, Maurin C, Brunelle S, Gravis G, Salem N, Walz J. Comparison of image-guided targeted biopsies versus systematic randomized biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic literature review of well-designed studies. World J Urol 2014;32(4):847-58. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    9. Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, Hooft L, Bosch J, Reitsma HB, Barentsz JO, Somford DM. Comparing Three Different Techniques for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsies: A Systematic Review of In-bore versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound fusion versus Cognitive Registration. Is There a Preferred Technique? Eur Urol 2017;71(4):517-31. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    10. Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, Stifelman MD, Lepor H, Deng FM, Melamed J, Taneja SS. 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 2014;66(2):343-51. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    11. Puech P, Rouviere O, Renard-Penna R, Villers A, Devos P, Colombel M, Bitker MO, Leroy X, Mege-Lechevallier F, Comperat E, Ouzzane A, Lemaitre L. Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy--prospective multicenter study. Radiology 2013;268(2):461-9. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    12. Jelidi A, Ohana M, Labani A, Alemann G, Lang H, Roy C. Prostate cancer diagnosis: Efficacy of a simple electromagnetic MRI-TRUS fusion method to target biopsies. Eur J Radiol 2017;86:127-34. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    13. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, Collaco-Moraes Y, Ward K, Hindley RG, Freeman A, Kirkham AP, Oldroyd R, Parker C, Emberton M, group Ps. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017;389(10071):815-22. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    14. Baco E, Rud E, Eri LM, Moen G, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A, Eggesbo HB, Ukimura O. 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 Systematic Biopsy. Eur Urol 2016;69(1):149-56. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    15. Cash H, Gunzel K, Maxeiner A, Stephan C, Fischer T, Durmus T, Miller K, Asbach P, Haas M, Kempkensteffen C. Prostate cancer detection on transrectal ultrasonography-guided random biopsy despite negative real-time magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion-guided targeted biopsy: reasons for targeted biopsy failure. BJU Int 2016;118(1):35-43. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content