Our experience with MRI/TRUS software fusion for targeted prostate biopsies
Authors:
Tomáš Pavlosek 1,3; Pavla Hanzliková 2; Vladimír Hořava 4,5
Authors‘ workplace:
Urologická ambulance SAGENA, s. r. o., Frýdek-Místek
1; Ústav zobrazovacích metod LF OU, Ostrava
2; Urologické oddělení, Nemocnice ve Frýdku-Místku, p. o., Frýdek-Místek
3; Oddělení patologie, Nemocnice ve Frýdku-Místku, p. o., Frýdek-Místek
4; AeskuLab Patologie, k. s., laboratoř Ostrava
5
Published in:
Ces Urol 2020; 24(1): 51-59
Category:
Original Articles
Overview
We would like to present the benefits of the MRI/ TRUS fusion software targeted at prostate biopsies and demonstrate our practical experience with the fusion software over the course of two years. All patients with PSA < 20 ng/ml underwent three-parametric prostate MRI, they were classified by the PI-RADS v.2 system. The fusion was carried out with the ultrasound device BK Medical Flex Focus 400 with transrectal probe 8808 – 10Hz. We present a group of examined patients and their histological results, where we demonstrate the effect of the targeted biopsy. For all the biopsies performed, it verified prostate carcinoma in 48.25% of patients, and systematic biopsy verified prostate carcinoma in 35.46% of patients. For rebiopsy of the prostate, the targeted biopsy verified prostate carcinoma in 49.21% of the patients, and systematic biopsy verified prostate carcinoma in 29.68% of patients. Our work confirmed the effect of targeted prostate biopsy for primobiopsy, where we have shown that in our group prostate carcinoma in 9.09% of patients would have been missed if we had not performed targeted biopsy. Our results are consistent with the 2019 recommendations of the European Association of Urology (EAU).
Keywords:
prostate cancer – magnetic resonance imaging – ultrasonography – MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy
Sources
1. Wong MC, Goggins WB, Wang HH, et al. Global Incidence and Mortality for Prostate Cancer: Analysis of Temporal Patterns and Trends in 36 Countries. Eur Urol. 2016; 70(5): 862–874.
2. Ahmed HU, El Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017; 389 (10071): 815–822.
3. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. MRI‑Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate‑Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018; 378(19): 1767–1777.
4. Recabal P, Assel M, Sjoberg DD, et al. The Efficacy of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy in Risk Classification for Patients with Prostate Cancer on Active Surveillance. J Urol. 2016; 196(2): 374–381.
5. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI‑RADS Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System: 2015; Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016; 69(1): 16–40.
6. Epstein JI. The Gleason grading system a complete guide for pathologist and clinicans, Wolters Kluwer Health, Philadelphia, 2013©.
7. Epstein JI, Netto GJ. Biopsy interpretation of the Prostate, 5th edition, Wolters Kluwer Health, Philadelphia, 2015.
8. WHO Classification of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs. 4th edition, IARC press, Lyon, 2016.
9. Epstein JI. Prostate cancer grading: a decade after the 2005 modified systém. Mod Pathol. 2018; 31(S1): 47–63.
10. Shah RB, Zhou M. Recent advances in prostate cancer pathology: Gleason grading and beyond. Pathol Int. 2016; 66(5): 260–272.
11. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016; 40(2): 244–252.
12. Epstein JI, Amin MB, Reuter VE, et al. Contemporary Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: An Update With Discussion on Practical Issues to Implement the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2017; 41(4): e1–e7.
13. Vavřík T, Dolejšová O, Sedláčková H, et al. Využití softwarové fúze multiparametrické magnetické rezonance a transrektální ultrasonografie při cílené biopsii nejen signifikantního karcinomu prostaty. Ces Urol 2018; 22(4): 257–265.
14. Woo S, Suh CH, Eastham JA, et al. Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging‑stratified Clinical Pathways and Systematic Transrectal Ultrasound‑guided Biopsy Pathway for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta‑analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019; 2(6): 605–616.
15. Di Campli E, Delli Pizzi A, Seccia B, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of biparametric vs multiparametric MRI in clinically significant prostate cancer: Comparison between readers with different experience. Eur J Radiol. 2018; 101: 17–23.
16. Mottet N, Van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer 2019. https://uroweb. org/guideline/prostate‑cancer/. Sou
Labels
Paediatric urologist Nephrology UrologyArticle was published in
Czech Urology
2020 Issue 1
Most read in this issue
- Our experience with MRI/TRUS software fusion for targeted prostate biopsies
- Multi-resistant gram negative bacteria in urology
- Hereditary renal cell carcinoma syndromes
- Case report of a gigantic recurrent angiomyolipoma in a horseshoe kidney