Produção Nacional
Revisado por pares
Comparison of Initial Experience with Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging Cognitive Guided Micro-Ultrasound Biopsies versus Established Transperineal Robotic Ultrasound Magnetic Resonance Imaging Fusion Biopsies for Prostate Cancer
2019; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 203; Issue: 5 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1097/ju.0000000000000692
ISSN1527-3792
AutoresOliver Rojas Claros, Rafael Tourinho‐Barbosa, A. Frégeville, Anna Colomer Gallardo, Fabio Muttin, Ariê Carneiro, Armando Stabile, Marco Moschini, Petr Macek, Nathalie Cathala, Annick Mombet, Rafael Sánchez-Salas, Xavier Cathelineau,
Tópico(s)Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
ResumoNo AccessJournal of UrologyAdult Urology1 May 2020Comparison of Initial Experience with Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging Cognitive Guided Micro-Ultrasound Biopsies versus Established Transperineal Robotic Ultrasound Magnetic Resonance Imaging Fusion Biopsies for Prostate CancerThis article is commented on by the following:Editorial CommentEditorial Comment Oliver Rojas Claros, Rafael Rocha Tourinho-Barbosa, Aude Fregeville, Anna Colomer Gallardo, Fabio Muttin, Ariê Carneiro, Armando Stabile, Marco Moschini, Petr Macek, Nathalie Cathala, Annick Mombet, Rafael Sanchez-Salas, and Xavier Cathelineau Oliver Rojas ClarosOliver Rojas Claros Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil , Rafael Rocha Tourinho-BarbosaRafael Rocha Tourinho-Barbosa Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France Hospital Cardiopulmonar, Bahia, Brazil , Aude FregevilleAude Fregeville Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France , Anna Colomer GallardoAnna Colomer Gallardo Hospital Universitari Germans Trias I Pujol, Badalona, Spain , Fabio MuttinFabio Muttin Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy , Ariê CarneiroAriê Carneiro Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil , Armando StabileArmando Stabile Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France , Marco MoschiniMarco Moschini Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France , Petr MacekPetr Macek Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France , Nathalie CathalaNathalie Cathala Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France , Annick MombetAnnick Mombet Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France , Rafael Sanchez-SalasRafael Sanchez-Salas †Correspondence: Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, 42, Boulevard, Jourdan75674, Paris, France telephone: +33-1-56-61-62-63; E-mail Address: [email protected] Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France , and Xavier CathelineauXavier Cathelineau Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000692AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: We compared cancer detection rates in patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging cognitive guided micro-ultrasound biopsy vs robotic ultrasound magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy for prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Among 269 targeted biopsy procedures 222 men underwent robotic ultrasound magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy and 47 micro-ultrasound biopsy. Robotic ultrasound magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy was performed using the transperineal Artemis™ device while micro-ultrasound biopsy was performed transrectally with the high resolution ExactVu™ system. Random biopsies were performed in addition to targeted biopsy in both modalities. Prostate cancer detection rates and concordance between random and target biopsies were also assessed. Results: Groups were comparable in terms of age, prostate specific antigen, prostate volume and magnetic resonance PI-RADS (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System) version 2 score. The micro-ultrasound biopsy group presented fewer biopsied cores in random and target approaches. In targeted biopsies micro-ultrasound biopsy cases presented higher detection of clinically significant disease (Gleason score greater than 6) than the robotic ultrasound magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy group (38% vs 23%, p=0.02). When considering prostate cancer detection regardless of Gleason score or prostate cancer detection by random+target biopsies, no difference was found between the groups. However, on a per core basis overall prostate cancer detection rates favored micro-ultrasound biopsy in random and targeted scenarios. In addition, the PRI-MUS (Prostate Risk Identification Using Micro-Ultrasound) score yielded by micro-ultrasound visualization was independently associated with improved cancer detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer. Conclusions: In our initial experience micro-ultrasound biopsy featured a higher clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate in target cores than robotic ultrasound magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy, which was associated with target features in micro-ultrasound (PRI-MUS score). These findings reinforce the role of micro-ultrasound technology in targeted biopsies. References 1. : EAU-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2017; 71: 618. Google Scholar 2. : A multicentric study on accurate grading of prostate cancer with systematic and MRI/US fusion targeted biopsies: comparison with final histopatology after radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 2019; 37: 2109. Google Scholar 3. : Does magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy improve prostate cancer detection? A comparison of systematic, cognitive fusion and ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy. Prostate Int 2018; 6: 88. Google Scholar 4. : Clinical application of a 3D ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy system. Urol Oncol 2011; 29: 334. Google Scholar 5. : High-resolution transrectal ultrasound: pilot study of a novel technique for imaging clinically localized prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2014; 32: 34. Google Scholar 6. : Comparison of conventional transrectal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and micro-ultrasound for visualizing prostate cancer in an active surveillance population: a feasibility study. Can Urol Assoc J 2019; 13: 70. Google Scholar 7. : Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of micro-ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion targeted biopsies for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol 2019; 2: 329. Google Scholar 8. : Assessing cancer risk on novel 29 MHz micro-ultrasound images of the prostate: creation of the micro-ultrasound protocol for prostate risk identification. J Urol 2016; 196: 562. Link, Google Scholar 9. : 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. Google Scholar 10. : MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 1767. Google Scholar 11. : Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017; 389: 815. Google Scholar 12. : Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol 2019; 75: 570. Google Scholar 13. : Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 2019; 20: 100. Google Scholar 14. : Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol 2019; 17: 31. Google Scholar 15. : Controversies in MR targeted biopsy: alone or combined, cognitive versus software-based fusion, transrectal versus transperineal approach?World J Urol 2019; 37: 277. Google Scholar 16. : Detection of clinically signifcant prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging–ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2014; 68: 8. Google Scholar 17. : 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 2014; 68: 438. Google Scholar 18. : Impact of using 29MHz high-resolution micro-ultrasound in real-time targeting of transrectal prostate biopsies: initial experience. World J Urol 2019; doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-02863-y. Crossref, Google Scholar 19. : Suspicious findings on micro-ultrasound imaging and early detection of prostate cancer. Urol Case Rep 2017; 21: 98. Google Scholar No direct or indirect commercial, personal, academic, political, religious or ethical incentive is associated with publishing this article. © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited bySountoulides P, Pyrgidis N, Polyzos S, Mykoniatis I, Asouhidou E, Papatsoris A, Dellis A, Anastasiadis A, Lusuardi L and Hatzichristou D (2021) Micro-Ultrasound–Guided vs Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Biopsy in the Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisJournal of Urology, VOL. 205, NO. 5, (1254-1262), Online publication date: 1-May-2021.Kinnaird A, Sharma V, Chuang R, Priester A, Tran E, Barsa D, Delfin M, Kwan L, Sisk A, Felker E and Marks L (2020) Risk of Prostate Cancer after a Negative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guided BiopsyJournal of Urology, VOL. 204, NO. 6, (1180-1186), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2020.Ghai S (2020) Editorial CommentJournal of Urology, VOL. 204, NO. 4, (732-733), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2020.Related articlesJournal of Urology20 Feb 2020Editorial CommentJournal of Urology20 Feb 2020Editorial Comment Volume 203Issue 5May 2020Page: 918-925 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Keywordsultrasoundmagnetic resonance imagingtransrectalhigh-intensity focusedbiopsyprostatic neoplasmsMetricsAuthor Information Oliver Rojas Claros Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil Equal study contribution. More articles by this author Rafael Rocha Tourinho-Barbosa Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France Hospital Cardiopulmonar, Bahia, Brazil Equal study contribution. More articles by this author Aude Fregeville Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France More articles by this author Anna Colomer Gallardo Hospital Universitari Germans Trias I Pujol, Badalona, Spain More articles by this author Fabio Muttin Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy More articles by this author Ariê Carneiro Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil More articles by this author Armando Stabile Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France More articles by this author Marco Moschini Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France More articles by this author Petr Macek Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France More articles by this author Nathalie Cathala Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France More articles by this author Annick Mombet Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France More articles by this author Rafael Sanchez-Salas Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France †Correspondence: Department of Urology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, 42, Boulevard, Jourdan75674, Paris, France telephone: +33-1-56-61-62-63; E-mail Address: [email protected] More articles by this author Xavier Cathelineau Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France More articles by this author Expand All No direct or indirect commercial, personal, academic, political, religious or ethical incentive is associated with publishing this article. Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Referência(s)