Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Optimization of Prostate Biopsy: the Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy in Detection, Localization and Risk Assessment

2014; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 192; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/j.juro.2014.03.117

1527-3792

Marc A. Bjurlin, Xiaosong Meng, Julien Le Nobin, James Wysock, Herbert Lepor, Andrew B. Rosenkrantz, Samir S. Taneja,

Prostate Cancer Treatment and Research

No AccessJournal of UrologyReview Article1 Sep 2014Optimization of Prostate Biopsy: the Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy in Detection, Localization and Risk Assessment Marc A. Bjurlin, Xiaosong Meng, Julien Le Nobin, James S. Wysock, Herbert Lepor, Andrew B. Rosenkrantz, and Samir S. Taneja Marc A. BjurlinMarc A. Bjurlin Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York , Xiaosong MengXiaosong Meng Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York , Julien Le NobinJulien Le Nobin Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York , James S. WysockJames S. Wysock Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York , Herbert LeporHerbert Lepor Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York , Andrew B. RosenkrantzAndrew B. Rosenkrantz Department of Radiology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York , and Samir S. TanejaSamir S. Taneja Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York Department of Radiology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.03.117AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: Optimization of prostate biopsy requires addressing the shortcomings of standard systematic transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy, including false-negative rates, incorrect risk stratification, detection of clinically insignificant disease and the need for repeat biopsy. Magnetic resonance imaging is an evolving noninvasive imaging modality that increases the accurate localization of prostate cancer at the time of biopsy, and thereby enhances clinical risk assessment and improves the ability to appropriately counsel patients regarding therapy. In this review we 1) summarize the various sequences that comprise a prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging examination along with its performance characteristics in cancer detection, localization and reporting standards; 2) evaluate potential applications of magnetic resonance imaging targeting in prostate biopsy among men with no previous biopsy, a negative previous biopsy and those with low stage cancer; and 3) describe the techniques of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy and comparative study outcomes. Materials and Methods: A bibliographic search covering the period up to October 2013 was conducted using MEDLINE®/PubMed®. Articles were reviewed and categorized based on which of the 3 objectives of this review was addressed. Data were extracted, analyzed and summarized. Results: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging consists of anatomical T2-weighted imaging coupled with at least 2 functional imaging techniques. It has demonstrated improved prostate cancer detection sensitivity up to 80% in the peripheral zone and 81% in the transition zone. A prostate cancer magnetic resonance imaging suspicion score has been developed, and is depicted using the Likert or PI-RADS (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System) scale for better standardization of magnetic resonance imaging interpretation and reporting. Among men with no previous biopsy, magnetic resonance imaging increases the frequency of significant cancer detection to 50% in low risk and 71% in high risk patients. In low risk men the negative predictive value of a combination of negative magnetic resonance imaging with prostate volume parameters is nearly 98%, suggesting a potential role in avoiding biopsy and reducing over detection/overtreatment. Among men with a previous negative biopsy 72% to 87% of cancers detected by magnetic resonance imaging guidance are clinically significant. Among men with a known low risk cancer, repeat biopsy using magnetic resonance targeting demonstrates a high likelihood of confirming low risk disease in low suspicion score lesions and of upgrading in high suspicion score lesions. Techniques of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy include visual estimation transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy; software co-registered magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound, transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy; and in-bore magnetic resonance imaging guided biopsy. Although the improvement in accuracy and efficiency of visual estimation biopsy compared to systematic appears limited, co-registered magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound biopsy as well as in-bore magnetic resonance imaging guided biopsy appear to increase cancer detection rates in conjunction with increasing suspicion score. Conclusions: Use of magnetic resonance imaging for targeting prostate biopsies has the potential to reduce the sampling error associated with conventional biopsy by providing better disease localization and sampling. More accurate risk stratification through improved cancer sampling may impact therapeutic decision making. Optimal clinical application of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy remains under investigation. References 1 : Optimization of initial prostate biopsy in clinical practice: sampling, labeling and specimen processing. J Urol2013; 189: 2039. Link, Google Scholar 2 : Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. Eur Urol2013; 63: 125. Google Scholar 3 : How reliable is 12-core prostate biopsy procedure in the detection of prostate cancer?. Can Urol Assoc J2012; 1. Google Scholar 4 : Pathologic outcomes of candidates for active surveillance undergoing radical prostatectomy. Urology2010; 76: 689. Google Scholar 5 : Use of extended pattern technique for initial prostate biopsy. J Urol2005; 174: 505. Link, Google Scholar 6 : When serial prostate biopsy is recommended: most cancers detected are clinically insignificant. BJU Int2012; 110: 987. Google Scholar 7 : MR imaging of the prostate gland: normal anatomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol1987; 148: 51. Google Scholar 8 : Assessment of biologic aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of MR signal intensity with Gleason grade after radical prostatectomy. Radiology2008; 246: 168. Google Scholar 9 : Transition zone prostate cancers: features, detection, localization, and staging at endorectal MR imaging. Radiology2006; 239: 784. Google Scholar 10 : High-b-value diffusion-weighted imaging at 3 T to detect prostate cancer: comparisons between b values of 1,000 and 2,000 s/mm2. AJR Am J Roentgenol2010; 194: W33. Google Scholar 11 : Ultra-high-b-value diffusion-weighted MR imaging for the detection of prostate cancer: evaluation in 201 cases with histopathological correlation. Eur Radiol2011; 21: 188. Google Scholar 12 : Reducing the influence of b-value selection on diffusion-weighted imaging of the prostate: evaluation of a revised monoexponential model within a clinical setting. J Magn Reson Imaging2012; 35: 660. Google Scholar 13 : Prospective assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using 3-T diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies versus a systematic 10-core transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy cohort. Eur Urol2012; 61: 177. Google Scholar 14 : Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images?. Radiology2011; 258: 488. Google Scholar 15 : Pharmacokinetic analysis of neoplasms using contrast-enhanced dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. Top Magn Reson Imaging1999; 10: 130. Google Scholar 16 : Multiparametric MRI and prostate cancer diagnosis and risk stratification. Curr Opin Urol2012; 22: 310. Google Scholar 17 : Dynamic contrast enhanced, pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging of localized prostate cancer for predicting tumor volume: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. J Urol2006; 176: 2432. Link, Google Scholar 18 : Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the detection and localization of prostate cancer: combination of T2-weighted, dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted imaging. BJU Int2011; 107: 1411. Google Scholar 19 : Usefulness of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate transition-zone cancer. Acta Radiol2008; 49: 1207. Google Scholar 20 : Prostate depiction at endorectal MR spectroscopic imaging: investigation of a standardized evaluation system. Radiology2004; 233: 701. Google Scholar 21 : ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol2012; 22: 746. Google Scholar 22 : Prostate cancer vs. post-biopsy hemorrhage: diagnosis with T2- and diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging2010; 31: 1387. Google Scholar 23 : Prostate cancer: multiparametric MRI for index lesion localization—a multiple-reader study. AJR Am J Roentgenol2012; 199: 830. Google Scholar 24 : Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. J Urol2011; 186: 1818. Link, Google Scholar 25 : Combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI for localization of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol2007; 189: 323. Google Scholar 26 : Prostate cancer: value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection—histopathologic correlation. Radiology2010; 255: 89. Google Scholar 27 : Preliminary experience with a novel method of three-dimensional co-registration of prostate cancer digital histology and in vivo multiparametric MRI. Clin Radiol2013; 68: e652. Google Scholar 28 : Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. BJU Int2011; 108: E171. Google Scholar 29 : Detection and localization of prostate cancer with the targeted biopsy strategy based on ADC map: a prospective large-scale cohort study. J Magn Reson Imaging2012; 35: 1414. Google Scholar 30 : Usefulness of pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical variables to reduce initial prostate biopsy in men with suspected clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol2013; 190: 502. Link, Google Scholar 31 : Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy—prospective multicenter study. Radiology2013; 268: 461. Google Scholar 32 : Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion device. J Urol2013; 189: 86. Link, Google Scholar 33 : Three-Tesla magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy in men with increased prostate-specific antigen and repeated, negative, random, systematic, transrectal ultrasound biopsies: detection of clinically significant prostate cancers. Eur Urol2012; 62: 902. Google Scholar 34 : Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound fusion biopsy detect prostate cancer in patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies. J Urol2012; 188: 2152. Link, Google Scholar 35 : Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Eur Urol2014; 65: 809. Google Scholar 36 : Prostate cancer detection using an extended prostate biopsy schema in combination with additional targeted cores from suspicious images in conventional and functional endorectal magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis2010; 13: 65. Google Scholar 37 : Magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of clinically low risk prostate cancer. J Urol2012; 188: 1732. Link, Google Scholar 38 : Impact of multiparametric endorectal coil prostate magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates: a prospective cohort study. J Urol2012; 187: 1247. Link, Google Scholar 39 : Transperineal magnetic resonance image targeted prostate biopsy versus transperineal template prostate biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. J Urol2013; 189: 860. Link, Google Scholar 40 : Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol2013; 64: 713. Google Scholar 41 : Critical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging targeted, transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal fusion biopsy for detection of prostate cancer. J Urol2013; 190: 1380. Link, Google Scholar 42 : 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 Urol2013; . Epub ahead of print. Google Scholar 43 : Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer detection: comparison of random and targeted biopsies. J Urol2013; 189: 493. Link, Google Scholar 44 : Role of multiparametric 3.0 tesla magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance. BJU Int2013; . Epub ahead of print. Google Scholar 45 : Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer. Cancer2013; 119: 3359. Google Scholar 46 : Prostate cancer: can multiparametric MR imaging help identify patients who are candidates for active surveillance?. Radiology2013; 268: 144. Google Scholar 47 : MRI-guided biopsy for prostate cancer detection: a systematic review of current clinical results. Curr Urol Rep2013; 14: 209. Google Scholar 48 : Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. Eur Urol2013; 64: 544. Google Scholar © 2014 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byShirk J, Reiter R, Wallen E, Pak R, Ahlering T, Badani K and Porter J (2022) Effect of 3-Dimensional, Virtual Reality Models for Surgical Planning of Robotic Prostatectomy on Trifecta Outcomes: A Randomized Clinical TrialJournal of Urology, VOL. 208, NO. 3, (618-625), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2022.Taneja S (2020) Re: Comparison of Targeted vs Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Men Who are Biopsy Naive: The Prospective Assessment of Image Registration in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer (PAIREDCAP) StudyJournal of Urology, VOL. 203, NO. 5, (881-881), Online publication date: 1-May-2020.Ellimoottil C, Marcotte M, Grace D, Krasnikov A, Phillips J, Quek M, Flanigan R and Gupta G (2017) Examining Patient Willingness to Pay for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guided Prostate Biopsy: Implications in the Era of Health Savings AccountsUrology Practice, VOL. 5, NO. 2, (85-92), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2018.Garcia-Reyes K, Nguyen H, Zagoria R, Shinohara K, Carroll P, Behr S and Westphalen A (2017) Impact of Lesion Visibility on Transrectal Ultrasound on the Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer (Gleason Score 3 + 4 or Greater) with Transrectal Ultrasound-Magnetic Resonance Imaging Fusion BiopsyJournal of Urology, VOL. 199, NO. 3, (699-705), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2018.Burks F, Hu J, Telang D, Liu A, Hawken S, Montgomery Z, Linsell S, Montie J, Miller D and Ghani K (2017) Repeat Prostate Biopsy Practice Patterns in a Statewide Quality Improvement CollaborativeJournal of Urology, VOL. 198, NO. 2, (322-328), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2017.Taneja S (2016) Re: Gleason Misclassification Rate is Independent of Number of Biopsy Cores in Systematic BiopsyJournal of Urology, VOL. 196, NO. 2, (413-414), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2016.Rastinehad A, Abboud S, George A, Frye T, Ho R, Chelluri R, Fascelli M, Shih J, Villani R, Ben-Levi E, Yaskiv O, Turkbey B, Choyke P, Merino M, Wood B and Pinto P (2016) Reproducibility of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Fusion Guided Prostate Biopsy: Multi-Institutional External Validation by a Propensity Score Matched CohortJournal of Urology, VOL. 195, NO. 6, (1737-1743), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2016.Shen X and Kumar P (2015) Trade-Off between Treatment of Early Prostate Cancer and Incidence of Advanced Prostate Cancer in the Prostate Screening EraJournal of Urology, VOL. 195, NO. 5, (1397-1402), Online publication date: 1-May-2016.Bryk D, Llukani E, Huang W and Lepor H (2015) Natural History of Pathologically Benign Cancer Suspicious Regions on Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Following Targeted BiopsyJournal of Urology, VOL. 194, NO. 5, (1234-1240), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2015.Matsugasumi T, Baco E, Palmer S, Aron M, Sato Y, Fukuda N, Süer E, Bernhard J, Nakagawa H, Azhar R, Gill I and Ukimura O (2015) Prostate Cancer Volume Estimation by Combining Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Targeted Biopsy Proven Cancer Core Length: Correlation with Cancer VolumeJournal of Urology, VOL. 194, NO. 4, (957-965), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2015.Dinh K, Mahal B, Ziehr D, Muralidhar V, Chen Y, Viswanathan V, Nezolosky M, Beard C, Choueiri T, Martin N, Orio P, Sweeney C, Trinh Q and Nguyen P (2015) Incidence and Predictors of Upgrading and Up Staging among 10,000 Contemporary Patients with Low Risk Prostate CancerJournal of Urology, VOL. 194, NO. 2, (343-349), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2015.Abraham N, Mendhiratta N and Taneja S (2014) Patterns of Repeat Prostate Biopsy in Contemporary Clinical PracticeJournal of Urology, VOL. 193, NO. 4, (1178-1184), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2015.Taneja S (2014) Re: Diffusion-Weighted MR Imaging in Early Assessment of Tumor Response to Radiotherapy in High-Risk Prostate CancerJournal of Urology, VOL. 193, NO. 2, (539-540), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2015.Radtke J, Kuru T, Boxler S, Alt C, Popeneciu I, Huettenbrink C, Klein T, Steinemann S, Bergstraesser C, Roethke M, Roth W, Schlemmer H, Hohenfellner M and Hadaschik B (2014) Comparative Analysis of Transperineal Template Saturation Prostate Biopsy Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy with Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion GuidanceJournal of Urology, VOL. 193, NO. 1, (87-94), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2015.Ukimura O (2014) Editorial CommentJournal of Urology, VOL. 192, NO. 6, (1648-1648), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2014. Volume 192Issue 3September 2014Page: 648-658 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2014 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Keywordsmagnetic resonance imagingprostatic neoplasmsprostateimage-guided biopsyrisk assessmentMetrics Author Information Marc A. Bjurlin Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York Nothing to disclose. More articles by this author Xiaosong Meng Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York Nothing to disclose. More articles by this author Julien Le Nobin Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York Nothing to disclose. More articles by this author James S. Wysock Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York Nothing to disclose. More articles by this author Herbert Lepor Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York Financial interest and/or other relationship with MedReviews, Watson, Serenity, TheraCoat, Amgen and SonaCare Medical. More articles by this author Andrew B. Rosenkrantz Department of Radiology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York Nothing to disclose. More articles by this author Samir S. Taneja Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York Department of Radiology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York Financial interest and/or other relationship with Hitachi, Janssen and Elsevier. More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...