Fusion biopsy of the prostate


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Aim. to compare the prostate cancer (PCa) detection rate, accuracy and safety of prostate image-guided fusion biopsy methods (cognitive fusion, software-fusion and HistoScanning-guided biopsy) on the basis of published studies in patients from 48 to 75 years with suspected prostate cancer during primary or repeat biopsy. To identify the limitations of these methods and improve the efficiency of fusion biopsy of the prostate in a further clinical trial. Materials and methods. search was carried out in the PubMed, Medline, Web of Science and eLibrary databases using following requests: (prostate cancer OR prostate adenocarcinoma) AND (MRI or magnetic resonance) AND (targeted biopsy); (prostate cancer OR prostate adenocarcinoma) AND (PHS OR Histoscanning) AND (targeted biopsy) and (prostate cancer OR prostate adenocarcinoma) AND (MRI or magnetic resonance) AND (targeted biopsy) AND (cognitive registration), targeted prostate biopsy, prostate histoscanning, histoscanning, cognitive prostate biopsy. Results. a total of 672 publications were found, of which 25 original scientific papers were included in the analysis (n=4634). According to the results, PCa detection rate in patients with an average age of62.5 years. (4875) and an average PSA of 6.3 ng/ml (4.1-10.8), who underwent cognitive fusion biopsy under MRI control (MR-fusion) was 32.5%, compared to 30% and 35% for histoscanning in combination with a systematic biopsy and combination of methods (MR-fusion biopsy and histoscanning-guided biopsy), respectively. The accuracy of cognitive MR-fusion biopsy was 49.8% (20.8%-82%), the accuracy of the software MR-fusion biopsy was 52.5% (26.5%-69.7%), the accuracy of histoscanning-guided targeted biopsy was 46.8% (26%-75.8%). The highest values were observed in the patients undergoing primary biopsy (75.8%). Discussion. Currently, imaging methods allow us to change the approach to the diagnosis of PCa by improving the efficiency of prostate biopsy, the only formal method for verifying PCa. A common method for PCa diagnosis in 2018 is a systematic prostate biopsy. However, due to the its drawbacks, fusion biopsy under control of MRI or ultrasound has being introduced into clinical practice with superior results. So far, there is a lack of sufficient scientific data to select a specific technique of the fusion biopsy of the prostate. According to the analysis, it was concluded that the incidence of complications didn’t increase when performing targeted biopsy in addition to the systematic protocol. Conclusion. The efficiency ofcognitive MR-fusion biopsy is comparable to software MR-fusion biopsy. Histoscanning-guided biopsy has lower diagnostic value than MR-guided target biopsy using software. The lack of solid conclusions in favor of a particular prostate fusion biopsy technique stresses on the relevance of further research on this topic.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

A. V Okishev

MSMSU named after A.I. Evdokimov

Email: okishev.art@gmail.com
urologist, Ph.D. student at the Department of Urology

A. V Govorov

MSMSU named after A.I. Evdokimov

Email: dr.govorov@gmail.com
MD, professor at Department of Urology

A. O Vasilyev

MSMSU named after A.I. Evdokimov

Email: alexvasilyev@me.com
Ph.D., assistant at the Department of Urology

A. V Bormotin

MSMSU named after A.I. Evdokimov

Email: avbormotin@icloud.com
Ph.D., associate professor at the Department of Urology

D. Y Pushkar

MSMSU named after A.I. Evdokimov

corresponding member of RAS, MD, professor, Head of the Department of Urology

References

  1. https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/annual-cancer-facts-and-figures/2017/cancer-facts-and-figures-2017.pdf
  2. Hodge K.K., McNeal J.E., Terris M.K. et al. Random systemic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J. Urol. 1989;142:71-74.
  3. Catalona W.J., Richie J.P., Ahmann F.R. et al. Comparsion of digital rectal examination and serum PSA in the early detection of prostate cancer: results of a multicenter clinical trial of 6630 men. J. Urol. 1994;151: 1283-1290.
  4. Eichler K., Hempel S., Wilby J., Myers L., Bachmann L.M., Kleijnen J. Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J. Urol. 2006;175:1605-1612.
  5. Chang J.J., Shinohara K., Bhargava V. et al. Prospective evaluation of lateral biopsies of the peripheral zone of prostate cancer detection. J. Urol. 1998;160:2111-2114.
  6. EAU-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. European Association of Urology. 2018;90-94.
  7. Rami'rez-Backhaus M., Iborra I., Gomez-FerrerA, Rubio-Briones J. Pathologic findings in patients with prostate cancer candidates for active surveillance. Arch. Esp. Urol. 2014;67(5):431-441.
  8. Poon Y., Mccallum W., Henkelman M., Sutcliffe B., Jewett A.S. Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate. Radiology. 1985;154:143-149.
  9. Barentsz J.O., Richenberg J., Clements R., et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur. Radiol. 2012;22:746-757.
  10. Dickinson L., Ahmed H.U., Allen C. et al. Scoring systems used for the interpretation and reporting of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancerdetection, localization, and characterization: could standardization lead toimproved utilization of imaging within the diagnostic pathway? J. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 2013;37:48-58.
  11. PIRADS V2. http://www.acr.org/ /media/ACR/Documents/PDF/ QualitySafety/Resources/PIRADS/PIRADS%20V2.pdf
  12. Polaneca S., Helbicha T.H., Bickela H., Domeniga K.P., Georgb D., Shariatd S.F., Aulitzkye W., Susanif M., Baltzera P.A. Head-to-head comparison of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v1. Eur. J. Radiol. 2016;85(6):1125-1131.
  13. Ahmed H.U., Bosaily A.E., Brown L.C., Gabe R., Kaplan R., Parmar M.K., et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;6736:1-8.
  14. National Health System (NHS). 2018. www.nhs.uk.
  15. Mottet N., Bellmunt J., Bolla M., Briers E., Cumberbatch M.G., Santis M.D. et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur. Urol. 2017;71: 618-629.
  16. Braeckman J., Autier P., Garbar C. Et al. Computer-aided ultrasonography (HistoScanning): a novel technology for locating and characterizing prostate cancer. BJU. Int. 2008;101:293-298.
  17. Moore C.M., Kasivisvanathan V., Eggener S. et al. Standards of Reporting for MRI-Targeted Biopsy Studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. Eur. Urol. 2013:64:544-552.
  18. Kasivisvanathan V., Rannikko A.S., Borghi M. et. al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018;378(19): 1767-1777.
  19. Cerantola Y., Haberer E., Torres J. et al. Accuracy of cognitive MRI-targeted biopsy in hitting prostate cancer-positive regions of interest World. J. Urol. 2015.
  20. Kasivisvanathan V., Dufour R., Moore C.M. et al. Transperineal Magnetic Resonance Image Targeted Prostate Biopsy Versus Transperineal Template Prostate Biopsy in the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. The Journal of Urology. 2013;189:860-866.
  21. Murphy I.G., NiMhurchu E., Gibney R.G. et al. MRI-directed cognitive fusion-guided biopsy of the anterior prostate tumors. Diagn. Interv. Radiol. 2017;23:87-93.
  22. Watanabe Y., Nagavama M., Araki T. et al. Targeted biopsy basedon ADC map in the detection and localization of prostate cancer: a feasibility study. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 2013;37(5):1168-1177.
  23. Cerantola Y., Dragomir A., Tanguaya S. Cost-effectiveness of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy in diagnosing prostate cancer. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations. 2015;1-9.
  24. Wysock J.S., Rosenkrantz A.B., Huang W.C. 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. 2014;66:343-351.
  25. Oberlin D.T., Casalino D.D., Miller F.H. et al. Diagnostic Value of Guided Biopsies: Fusion and Cognitive registration Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Conventional Ultrasound Biopsy of the Prostate. Urology. 2016;92: 75-79.
  26. Klotz L., Loblaw A., Sugar L. et al. Active Surveillance Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study (ASIST): Results of a Randomized Multicenter Prospective Trial. Eur Urol. 2018.
  27. Pokorny M.R., Maarten de Rooij, 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.
  28. Долгачева Д.В. Современные методики биопсии предстательной железы в диагностике рака». Дисс. канд. мед. наук, 2017
  29. Simmons L., Kanthabalan A., Hu Y. et. al. The UCL PICTURE trial: A prospective cohortvalidating study evaluating the accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and prostate HistoScanning compared to transperineal template mapping biopsies in patients requiring risk stratification after prior transrectal prostate biopsy. Eur. Urol. Suppl. 2016;15(3):498.
  30. Hamann M.F., Hamann C., Olzem D. et al. Value of perineal HistoScanning™ template-guided prostate biopsy. Urologie. 2015.
  31. Govorov A.V., Vasyliev A.O., Prilepskaya E.A. Prospective comparison of random TRUS biopsy versus Prostate Histoscanning-guided and random biopsy versus MRI-guided and random biopsy: which technique is optimal for prostate cancer detection and its Grade group detection?. abstract book of annual congress AUA. 2018.
  32. Glybochko P.V., Alyaev Y.G., Amosov A.V. et al. Evaluation of Prostate HistoScanning as a Method for Targeted Biopsy in Routine Practice. Eur. Urol. Focus. 2017.
  33. Зубарев А.В., Бояринцев В.В., Федорова А.А. Инновационная ультразвуковая технология - гистосканирование для поиска рака простаты. Клиническая медицина. 2016;1
  34. Puech P., Rouviere O., Renard-Penna R., Villers A. et al. Multiparametric MR-targeted Biopsy with Cognitive and Transrectal US-MR Fusion Guidance versus Systematic Biopsy-Prospective Multicenter Study. Radiology. 2013;268(2):461-469.
  35. Valerio M., McCartan N., Freeman A., Path F.R.C., Punwani S. et al. Visually directed vs. software-based targeted biopsy compared to transperineal template mapping biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Urol. Onc. 2015:1-8.
  36. Osses D., van Asten J.J., Tijsterman J.D. Cognitive-Targeted versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Prostate Biopsy in Prostate Cancer Detection. Curr. Urol. 2017;11:182-188.
  37. John S., Cooper S., Breau R.H., Flood T.A., Cagiannos I., Lavalee L.T., Morash C. et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging -Transrectal ultrasound-guided cognitive fusion biopsy of the prostate: Clinically significant cancer detection rates stratified by the Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System version 2 assessment category. Urol. Assoc. J. 2018.
  38. Lai W.J., Wang H.K., Liu H.T., Park B.K., Shen S.H., Lin T.P. et. al. Cognitive MRI-TRUS fusion-targeted prostate biopsy according to PI-RADS classification in patients with prior negative systematic biopsy results. JCMA. 2016;1-7.
  39. Ploussard G., Aronson S., Pelsser V., Levental M., Anidjar M., Bladon F. Impact of the type of ultrasound probe on prostate cancer detection rate and characterization in patients undergoing MRI-targeted prostate biopsies using cognitive fusion. World J. Urol. 2013.
  40. Tonttila P.P., Lantto J., Paakko E., Kauppila S., et al. Prebiopsy Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis in Biopsy-naive Men with Suspected Prostate Cancer Based on Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen Values: Results from a Randomized Prospective Blinded Controlled Trial. Eur. Urol. 2015.
  41. Kaufmann S., Russo G.I., Bamberg F., Lowe L., Morgia G. et al. Prostate cancer detection in patients with prior negative biopsy undergoing cognitive-, robotic-or in-bore MRI target biopsy. World J. Urol. 2018;36:761-768.
  42. Monda S.M., Velter J.M., Andriole G.L., Fowler K.J., Shelty A.S., et al. Cognitive Versus Software Fusion for MRI Targeted Biopsy: Experience Before and After Implementation of Fusion. Urol. 2018.
  43. Dekalo S., Matzkin H., Mabjeesh N.J. High cancer detection rate using cognitive fusion - targeted transperineal prostate biopsies. Int. Braz. J. Urol. 2017;43(4):600-606.
  44. Lee D.H., Nam J.K., Park S.W., Lee S.S., Han J.Y., et al. Visually Estimated MRI Targeted Prostate Biopsy Could Improve the Detection of Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients with a PSA Level №10 ng/ml. Yonsei Med. J. 2016;57(3):565-571.
  45. Boesen L., Noergaard N., Chabanova E., Logager V., Balslev I., 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. 2014.
  46. Gorski A., Roupret M., Peyronnet B., Le Cossec C., et al. Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsies to Diagnose Clinical Significant Prostate Cancer in Enlarged Compared to Smaller Prostates. J. Urol. 2015;194:1-5.
  47. Peltier A., Aoun F., Lemort M., Kwizera F., et al. MRI-Targeted Biopsies versus Systematic Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Biopsies for the Diagnosis of Localized Prostate Cancer in Biopsy Naive Men. Biomed Reserch Int. 2015;1-6.
  48. Radtke J.P., Boxler S., Kuru T.H., Wolf M.B., Alt C.D., et al. Improved detection of anterior fibromuscular stroma and transition zone prostate cancer using biparametric and multiparametric MRI with MRI-targeted biopsy and MRI-US fusion guidance. PCAN. 2015;18:288-296.
  49. Abdi H., Zargar H., Goldenberg S.L., Walshe T., Pourmalek F., et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer in patients with prior negative biopsy results. Urol. Onc. 2015;33:1-7.
  50. Hansen N.L., Barrett T., Kesch C., Pepdjonovic L., Bonekamp D., et al. Multicentre evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging supported transperineal prostate biopsy in biopsy-na€ive men with suspicion of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2017;122:40-49.
  51. Porpiglia F., De Luca S., Passera R., Manfredi M., et al. Multiparametric-Magnetic Resonance/Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Prostate Biopsy Improves Agreement Between Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Gleason Score. Anticancer Research. 2016;36:4833-4840.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies