Current approaches to targeted prostate biopsy


Cite item

Full Text

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

Abstract

Currently, prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common malignancy in men after lung cancer and the fifth leading cause of death worldwide. According to world and national statistics, over the past 20 years, there has been a steady increase in both incidence and mortality from PCa. Prostate biopsy is the cornerstone of the PCa diagnosis. However, recently, systematic transrectal biopsy as a standard approach has been questioned, since it has significant drawbacks that reduce the quality of PCa diagnosis. Considering the clinical importance of accurate PCa staging, MRI-guided targeted biopsy has been developed, which is currently the most accurate technique for taking a sample of tissue from suspicious areas. The optimal approaches to targeted prostate biopsy and the potential possibilities of including multiparametric MRI in the primary diagnostic algorithm are highlighted in this review, based on the results of large studies. The method allows to increase the overall PCa detection rate, the detection rates of clinically significant PCa, reduce the frequency of diagnosis of low-risk tumors and increase the overall accuracy of PCa detection, which has an outmost importance for the patient selection for active surveillance and to control disease progression.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

S. V Popov

SPb GBUZ «City Hospital Saint Luka»; North-Western State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov; FGBVOU VO S. M. Kirov Military Medical Academy of the Ministry of Defense of Russian Federation

Email: doc.popov@gmail.com
Ph.D., MD, professor at the Department of Urology

I. N Orlov

SPb GBUZ «City Hospital Saint Luka»

Email: doc.orlov@gmail.com
Ph.D., associate professor at the Department of Urology, Deputy Director on Medical Care

S. M Malevich

SPb GBUZ «City Hospital Saint Luka»

Email: malevichsm@gmail.com
urologist, Department of Urology

I. V Sushina

SPb GBUZ «City Hospital Saint Luka»

Email: irasushina@yandex.ru
urologist, Department of Urology

E. A Grin'

SPb GBUZ «City Hospital Saint Luka»

Email: sv.lukaendouro@gmail.com
urologist, andrologist, Department of Urology

T. M Topuzov

SPb GBUZ «City Hospital Saint Luka»

Email: ttopuzov@gmail.com
Ph.D., Head of Department of Urology

P. V Vjazovcev

SPb GBUZ «City Hospital Saint Luka»

Email: vpv.doc@gmail.com
urologist, Department of Urology

D. Yu Chernysheva

SPb GBUZ «City Hospital Saint Luka»; SPbGU

Email: daria.chern@gmail.com
Ph.D., assistant at the Department of Hospital Surgery of Medical Faculty of SPbGU, urologist, oncologist, Department of Urology

V. A Neradovskiy

SPb GBUZ «City Hospital Saint Luka»

Email: neraddocuro@gmail.com
urologist, Department of Urology

References

  1. Rawla P. Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer. World journal of oncology. 2019;10(2):63-89. doi: 10.14740/wjon1191.
  2. Ghai S., Trachtenberg J. In-bore MRI interventions. Current Opinion in Urology. 2015;25(3): 394-424. doi: 10.1097/M0U.0000000000000160.
  3. Bray F., Ferlay J., Soerjomataram I., Siegel R.L., Torre L.A., Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2018;68(6):205-211. doi: 10.3322/caac.21492.
  4. Das C.J., Razik A., Sharma S., Verma S. Prostate biopsy: when and how to perform. Clinical Radiology. 2019;74(11):853-864. Doi: 10.1016/j. crad.2019.03.016.
  5. Каприн А.Д., Старинский В.В., Петрова Г.В. Злокачественные Новообразования в России в 2018 году (заболеваемость и смертность). М.: МНИОИ им. Герцена; 2019
  6. de Angelis R., Sant M., Coleman M.P., et al. Cancer survival in Europe 1999-2007 by country and age: results of EUROCARE-5-a population-based study. The Lancet Oncology. 2014; 15(1) :23-34. Doi: 10.1016/ S1470-2045(13)70546-1.
  7. vanden Berg R.N.W., McClure T.D., Margolis D.J.A. A Review of Prostate Biopsy Techniques. Seminars in Roentgenology. 2018;53(3):213-218. doi: 10.1053/j.ro.2018.04.001.
  8. Htibner N., Shariat S., Remzi M. Prostate biopsy. Current Opinion in Urology. 2018;28(4):354-359. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000510.
  9. Mottet N., Bellmunt J., Briers E., et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Update. 2020;5:31-45. http://www.uroweb.org/fileadmin/tx_eauguidelines/2005/Pocket/Prostate_Cancer. pdf
  10. Scherr D.S., Eastham J., Ohori M., Scardino P.T. Prostate biopsy techniques and indications: When, where, and how? Seminars in Urologic Oncology. 2002;20(1):18-31. doi: 10.1053/suro.2002.30395.
  11. Purnell S.D., Bloom J.B., Valera V., Wood B.J., Turkbey B., Pinto P.A. Targeted biopsy. Current Opinion in Urology. 2018;28(2):219-226. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000481.
  12. Guichard G., Larre S., Gallina A., et al. Extended 21-sample needle biopsy protocol for diagnosis of prostate cancer in 1000 consecutive patients. European urology. 2007;52(2). doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.02.062.
  13. Berger A.P., Gozzi C., Steiner H., et al. Complication rate of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: a comparison among 3 protocols with 6, 10 and 15 cores. The Journal of urology. 2004;171(4):1478-1480. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000116449.01186.f7.
  14. Shen P.F., Zhu Y.C., Wei W.R., et al. The results of transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian journal of andrology. 2012;14:310-315. doi: 10.1038/aja.2011.130.
  15. Logan J.K., Rais-Bahrami S., Turkbey B., et al. Current status of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography fusion software platforms for guidance of prostate biopsies. BJU International. 2014;114(5):641-652. doi: 10.1111/bju.12593.
  16. Ahdoot M., Wilbur A.R., Reese S.E., et al. MRI-Targeted, Systematic, and Combined Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis. New England Journal of Medicine. 2020;382(10):917-928. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910038.
  17. Moussa A.S.,. Meshref A., Schoenfield L., et al. Importance of Additional “Extreme” Anterior Apical Needle Biopsies in the Initial Detection of Prostate Cancer. Urology. 2010;75(5): 1034-1039. Doi: 10.1016/j. urology.2009.11.008.
  18. Ahmed H.U., El-Shater Bosaily A., Brown L.C., et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. The Lancet. 2017;389:815-822. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1.
  19. Miah S., Eldred-Evans D., Simmons L.A.M., et al. Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Transperineal Template Prostate Mapping Biopsies in the PICTURE Study. Journal of Urology. 2018;200(6):1235-1240. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.06.033.
  20. Xu S., Kruecker J., Turkbey B., et al. Real-time MRI-TRUS fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsies. Computer Aided Surgery. 2008;13(5):255-264. doi: 10.3109/10929080802364645.
  21. Ftitterer J.J., Briganti A., de Visschere P., et al. Can Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Be Detected with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging? A Systematic Review of the Literature. European Urology. 2015;68(6):1045-1053. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.013.
  22. Lomas D.J., Ahmed H.U. All change in the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology. 2020; 17(6):372-381. doi: 10.1038/s41571-020-0332-z.
  23. Schoots I.G., Roobol M.J., Nieboer D., Bangma C.H., Steyerberg E.W., Hunink M.G.M. 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. European Urology. 2015;68(3):438-450. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.037.
  24. van der Leest M., Cornel E., Israel B., et al. Head-to-head Comparison of Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Prostate Biopsy Versus Multiparametric Prostate Resonance Imaging with Subsequent Magnetic Resonance-guided Biopsy in Biopsy-naive Men with Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen: A Large Prospective Multicenter Clinical Study. European Urology. 2019;75(4):570-578. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023.
  25. 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. Journal of Urology. 2013;189(3):860-866. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.10.009.
  26. Kam J., Yuminaga Y., Kim Ret al. Does magnetic resonance imaging- guided biopsy improve prostate cancer detection? A comparison of systematic, cognitive fusion and ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy. Prostate International. 2018;6(3):88-93. doi: 10.1016/j.prnil.2017.10.003.
  27. 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 Naive Men with Elevated Prostate Specific Antigen. Journal of Urology. 2014;192(5):1374- 1379. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.05.090.
  28. Felker E.R., Lee-Felker S.A., Feller J., et al. In-bore magnetic resonance-guided transrectal biopsy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Abdominal Radiology. 2016;41(5):954-962. doi: 10.1007/s00261-016-0750-7.
  29. Schimmoller L., Blondin D., Arsov C., et al. MRI-Guided In-Bore Biopsy: Differences Between Prostate Cancer Detection and Localization in Primary and Secondary Biopsy Settings. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2016;206(1):92-99. doi: 10.2214/AJR.15.14579.
  30. 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. European Urology. 2014;65(4):809-815. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.025.
  31. 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. European Urology. 2014;66(2):343-351. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.10.048.
  32. Cool D.W., Zhang X., Romagnoli C., Izawa J.I., Romano W.M., Fenster A. Evaluation of MRI-TRUS Fusion Versus Cognitive Registration Accuracy for MRI-Targeted, TRUS-Guided Prostate Biopsy. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2015;204(1):83-91. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.12681.
  33. Kongnyuy M., George A.K., Rastinehad A.R., Pinto P.A. Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Prostate Biopsy: Review of Technology, Techniques, and Outcomes. Current Urology Reports. 2016;17(4):32. doi: 10.1007/s11934-016-0589-z.
  34. Das C.J., Razik A., Netaji A., Verma S. Prostate MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy: a review of the state of the art procedure. Abdominal Radiology. 2020;45(7):2176-2183. doi: 10.1007/s00261-019-02391-8.
  35. Borkowetz A., Platzek I., Toma M., et al. Direct comparison ofmultiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) results with final histopathology in patients with proven prostate cancer in MRI/ultrasonography-fusion biopsy. BJU International. 2016;118(2):213-220. doi: 10.1111/bju.13461.
  36. Shin T.Smyth T.B., Ukimura O., et al. Diagnostic accuracy of a five-point Likert scoring system for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluated according to results of MRI/ultrasonography image-fusion targeted biopsy of the prostate. BJU International. 2018;121(1):77-83. Doi: 10.1111/ bju.13972.
  37. Kongnyuy M., Sidana A., George A.K., et al. The significance of anterior prostate lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in African-American men. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations. 2016;34(6):15-21. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.12.018.
  38. Wolf J.S., Bennett C.J., Dmochowski R.R., Hollenbeck B.K., Pearle M.S., Schaeffer A.J. Best practice policy statement on urologic surgery antimicrobial prophylaxis. J. Urol. 2008;179:1379-1390. Doi: 10.1016/j. juro.2008.01.068.
  39. Culkin D.J., Exaire E.J., Green D., et al. Anticoagulation and Antiplatelet Therapy in Urological Practice: ICUD/AUA Review Paper. Journal of Urology. 2014;192(4):1026-1034. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.04.103.
  40. Harvey C.J., Pilcher J., Richenberg J., Patel U., Frauscher F. Applications of transrectal ultrasound in prostate cancer. British Journal of Radiology. 2012;85:3-17. doi: 10.1259/bjr/56357549.
  41. Rosario D.J., Lane J.A., Metcalfe C., et al. Short term outcomes of prostate biopsy in men tested for cancer by prostate specific antigen: prospective evaluation within ProtecT study. BMJ. 2012;344:d7894. doi: 10.1136/bmj. d7894.
  42. Efesoy O., Bozlu M., Eayan S., Akbay E. Complications of transrectal ultrasound-guided 12-core prostate biopsy: a single center experience with 2049 patients. Turkish journal of urology. 2013;39:6-11. Doi: 10.5152/ tud.2013.002.
  43. Loeb S., Vellekoop A., Ahmed H.U., Catto J., Emberton M., Nam R. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64:876-892. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.049.
  44. Borghesi M/, Ahmed H/, Nam R/, et al. Complications after systematic, random, and image-guided prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2017;71:353-363. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.004.

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