1
|
Kaur T, Jiang Y, Seiberlich N, Hussain H, Wells S, Wei J, Caoili E, Gulani V. Clinical feasibility of MRI-guided in-bore prostate biopsies at 0.55T. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2025:10.1007/s00261-024-04783-x. [PMID: 39794536 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-024-04783-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2024] [Revised: 12/20/2024] [Accepted: 12/21/2024] [Indexed: 01/13/2025]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE In-bore MRI-guided biopsy allows direct visualization of suspicious lesions, biopsy needles, and trajectories, allowing accurate sampling when MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy is not feasible. However, its use has been limited. Wide-bore, lower-field, and lower-cost scanners could help address these issues, but their feasibility for prostate biopsy is unknown. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the feasibility of in-bore MRI-guided prostate biopsy using a large-bore (80 cm), 0.55T scanner. MATERIALS AND METHODS Nineteen participants (68 ± 10 years) with suspected prostate cancer (PCa) were recruited for this Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved study (May 2023 -October 2024). Prebiopsy diagnostic scans and intra-procedural T2-weighted images were used for lesion localization. PSA levels, lesion sizes, cancer detection rates, positive core volume percentage, ISUP (International Society of Urological Pathology) grade groups (GG), positive volume cores, skin to target distances, and procedure durations were reported. RESULTS Seventeen participants underwent biopsies (four transrectal, thirteen percutaneous). Two participants were excluded. Twenty lesions (mean size 1.9 ± 1.2 cm) were biopsied which showed various GG cancers (GG1, GG2, GG3, GG4, and GG5), with positive cores ranging from 10 to 100%. 20% of the lesions were benign. Compared to previous biopsies, 22.2% (2/9) had new cancer detections, 22.2% (2/9) showed a GG upgrade, and 33.3% (3/9) had increased positive core volume, while 11.1% (1/9) showed no upgrade and 11.1% (1/9) had benign findings. Among biopsy-naïve participants, 75% (6/8) had cancer detected, and 25% (2/8) had benign findings. One new cancer was detected near a hip prosthesis due to reduced imaging artifacts. Average total procedure time was 77 ± 21 min for transrectal and 74 ± 22 min for percutaneous biopsies, with times to first core at 45 ± 15 and 53 ± 14 min, respectively. CONCLUSION Identifying and accurately targeting suspicious prostate lesions is feasible using a 0.55T MRI scanner.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Yun Jiang
- University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA
| | | | | | | | - John Wei
- University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Oerther B, Nedelcu A, Engel H, Schmucker C, Schwarzer G, Brugger T, Schoots IG, Eisenblaetter M, Sigle A, Gratzke C, Bamberg F, Benndorf M. Update on PI-RADS Version 2.1 Diagnostic Performance Benchmarks for Prostate MRI: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Radiology 2024; 312:e233337. [PMID: 39136561 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.233337] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/29/2024]
Abstract
Background Prostate MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) is standardized by the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), currently in version 2.1. A systematic review and meta-analysis infrastructure with a 12-month update cycle was established to evaluate the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS over time. Purpose To provide estimates of diagnostic accuracy and cancer detection rates (CDRs) of PI-RADS version 2.1 categories for prostate MRI, which is required for further evidence-based patient management. Materials and Methods A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and multiple trial registers (English-language studies published from March 1, 2019, to August 30, 2022) was performed. Studies that reported data on diagnostic accuracy or CDRs of PI-RADS version 2.1 with csPCa as the primary outcome were included. For the meta-analysis, pooled estimates for sensitivity, specificity, and CDRs were derived from extracted data at the lesion level and patient level. Sensitivity and specificity for PI-RADS greater than or equal to 3 and PI-RADS greater than or equal to 4 considered as test positive were investigated. In addition to individual PI-RADS categories 1-5, subgroup analyses of subcategories (ie, 2+1, 3+0) were performed. Results A total of 70 studies (11 686 lesions, 13 330 patients) were included. At the patient level, with PI-RADS greater than or equal to 3 considered positive, meta-analysis found a 96% summary sensitivity (95% CI: 95, 98) and 43% specificity (95% CI: 33, 54), with an area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.75, 0.93). For PI-RADS greater than or equal to 4, meta-analysis found an 89% sensitivity (95% CI: 85, 92) and 66% specificity (95% CI: 58, 74), with an area under the SROC curve of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.92). CDRs were as follows: PI-RADS 1, 6%; PI-RADS 2, 5%; PI-RADS 3, 19%; PI-RADS 4, 54%; and PI-RADS 5, 84%. The CDR was 12% (95% CI: 7, 19) for transition zone 2+1 lesions and 19% (95% CI: 12, 29) for 3+0 lesions (P = .12). Conclusion Estimates of diagnostic accuracy and CDRs for PI-RADS version 2.1 categories are provided for quality benchmarking and to guide further evidence-based patient management. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Tammisetti and Jacobs in this issue.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benedict Oerther
- From the Department of Radiology (B.O., A.N., H.E., F.B., M.B.), Institute for Evidence in Medicine (C.S., T.B.), Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics (G.S.), Department of Urology (A.S., C.G.), and Berta-Ottenstein-Programme (A.S), Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany; Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (I.G.S); and Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty OWL, University of Bielefeld, Klinikum Lippe, Röntgenstrasse 18, 32756 Detmold, Germany (M.E., M.B.)
| | - Andrea Nedelcu
- From the Department of Radiology (B.O., A.N., H.E., F.B., M.B.), Institute for Evidence in Medicine (C.S., T.B.), Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics (G.S.), Department of Urology (A.S., C.G.), and Berta-Ottenstein-Programme (A.S), Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany; Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (I.G.S); and Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty OWL, University of Bielefeld, Klinikum Lippe, Röntgenstrasse 18, 32756 Detmold, Germany (M.E., M.B.)
| | - Hannes Engel
- From the Department of Radiology (B.O., A.N., H.E., F.B., M.B.), Institute for Evidence in Medicine (C.S., T.B.), Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics (G.S.), Department of Urology (A.S., C.G.), and Berta-Ottenstein-Programme (A.S), Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany; Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (I.G.S); and Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty OWL, University of Bielefeld, Klinikum Lippe, Röntgenstrasse 18, 32756 Detmold, Germany (M.E., M.B.)
| | - Christine Schmucker
- From the Department of Radiology (B.O., A.N., H.E., F.B., M.B.), Institute for Evidence in Medicine (C.S., T.B.), Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics (G.S.), Department of Urology (A.S., C.G.), and Berta-Ottenstein-Programme (A.S), Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany; Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (I.G.S); and Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty OWL, University of Bielefeld, Klinikum Lippe, Röntgenstrasse 18, 32756 Detmold, Germany (M.E., M.B.)
| | - Guido Schwarzer
- From the Department of Radiology (B.O., A.N., H.E., F.B., M.B.), Institute for Evidence in Medicine (C.S., T.B.), Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics (G.S.), Department of Urology (A.S., C.G.), and Berta-Ottenstein-Programme (A.S), Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany; Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (I.G.S); and Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty OWL, University of Bielefeld, Klinikum Lippe, Röntgenstrasse 18, 32756 Detmold, Germany (M.E., M.B.)
| | - Timo Brugger
- From the Department of Radiology (B.O., A.N., H.E., F.B., M.B.), Institute for Evidence in Medicine (C.S., T.B.), Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics (G.S.), Department of Urology (A.S., C.G.), and Berta-Ottenstein-Programme (A.S), Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany; Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (I.G.S); and Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty OWL, University of Bielefeld, Klinikum Lippe, Röntgenstrasse 18, 32756 Detmold, Germany (M.E., M.B.)
| | - Ivo G Schoots
- From the Department of Radiology (B.O., A.N., H.E., F.B., M.B.), Institute for Evidence in Medicine (C.S., T.B.), Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics (G.S.), Department of Urology (A.S., C.G.), and Berta-Ottenstein-Programme (A.S), Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany; Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (I.G.S); and Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty OWL, University of Bielefeld, Klinikum Lippe, Röntgenstrasse 18, 32756 Detmold, Germany (M.E., M.B.)
| | - Michel Eisenblaetter
- From the Department of Radiology (B.O., A.N., H.E., F.B., M.B.), Institute for Evidence in Medicine (C.S., T.B.), Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics (G.S.), Department of Urology (A.S., C.G.), and Berta-Ottenstein-Programme (A.S), Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany; Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (I.G.S); and Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty OWL, University of Bielefeld, Klinikum Lippe, Röntgenstrasse 18, 32756 Detmold, Germany (M.E., M.B.)
| | - August Sigle
- From the Department of Radiology (B.O., A.N., H.E., F.B., M.B.), Institute for Evidence in Medicine (C.S., T.B.), Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics (G.S.), Department of Urology (A.S., C.G.), and Berta-Ottenstein-Programme (A.S), Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany; Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (I.G.S); and Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty OWL, University of Bielefeld, Klinikum Lippe, Röntgenstrasse 18, 32756 Detmold, Germany (M.E., M.B.)
| | - Christian Gratzke
- From the Department of Radiology (B.O., A.N., H.E., F.B., M.B.), Institute for Evidence in Medicine (C.S., T.B.), Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics (G.S.), Department of Urology (A.S., C.G.), and Berta-Ottenstein-Programme (A.S), Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany; Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (I.G.S); and Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty OWL, University of Bielefeld, Klinikum Lippe, Röntgenstrasse 18, 32756 Detmold, Germany (M.E., M.B.)
| | - Fabian Bamberg
- From the Department of Radiology (B.O., A.N., H.E., F.B., M.B.), Institute for Evidence in Medicine (C.S., T.B.), Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics (G.S.), Department of Urology (A.S., C.G.), and Berta-Ottenstein-Programme (A.S), Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany; Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (I.G.S); and Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty OWL, University of Bielefeld, Klinikum Lippe, Röntgenstrasse 18, 32756 Detmold, Germany (M.E., M.B.)
| | - Matthias Benndorf
- From the Department of Radiology (B.O., A.N., H.E., F.B., M.B.), Institute for Evidence in Medicine (C.S., T.B.), Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics (G.S.), Department of Urology (A.S., C.G.), and Berta-Ottenstein-Programme (A.S), Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany; Department of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (I.G.S); and Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty OWL, University of Bielefeld, Klinikum Lippe, Röntgenstrasse 18, 32756 Detmold, Germany (M.E., M.B.)
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Hájek M, Flögel U, S Tavares AA, Nichelli L, Kennerley A, Kahn T, Futterer JJ, Firsiori A, Grüll H, Saha N, Couñago F, Aydogan DB, Caligiuri ME, Faber C, Bell LC, Figueiredo P, Vilanova JC, Santini F, Mekle R, Waiczies S. MR beyond diagnostics at the ESMRMB annual meeting: MR theranostics and intervention. MAGMA (NEW YORK, N.Y.) 2024; 37:323-328. [PMID: 38865057 PMCID: PMC11316697 DOI: 10.1007/s10334-024-01176-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2024] [Revised: 04/26/2024] [Accepted: 04/30/2024] [Indexed: 06/13/2024]
Affiliation(s)
- Milan Hájek
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Ulrich Flögel
- Experimental Cardiovascular Imaging, Institute for Molecular Cardiology, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | - Adriana A S Tavares
- Centre for Cardiovascular Sciences and Edinburgh Imaging, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Lucia Nichelli
- Sorbonne Université, Inserm, CNRS, UMR S 1127, Paris Brain Institute, ICM, Paris, France
- Department of Neuroradiology, AP-HP, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France
| | - Aneurin Kennerley
- Department of Sports and Exercise Science, Institute of Sport, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK
- Department of Biology, University of York, York, UK
| | - Thomas Kahn
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
| | - Jurgen J Futterer
- Minimally Invasive Image-Guided Intervention Center (MAGIC), Department of Medical Imaging, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Aikaterini Firsiori
- Unit of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Diagnostic Department, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Holger Grüll
- Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
- Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Nandita Saha
- Max-Delbrück-Centrum Für Molekulare Medizin (MDC), Berlin Ultrahigh Field Facility, Berlin, Germany
- Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Felipe Couñago
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Hospital Universitario San Francisco de Asís, Hospital Universitario Vithas La Milagrosa, GenesisCare, 28010, Madrid, Spain
| | - Dogu Baran Aydogan
- A.I. Virtanen Institute for Molecular Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland
| | - Maria Eugenia Caligiuri
- Neuroscience Research Center, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Università Degli Studi "Magna Graecia", Catanzaro, Italy
| | - Cornelius Faber
- Translational Research Imaging Center (TRIC), Clinic of Radiology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
| | - Laura C Bell
- Early Clinical Development, Genentech Inc., South San Francisco, USA
| | - Patrícia Figueiredo
- Institute for Systems and Robotics, ISR-Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
- Department of Bioengineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Joan C Vilanova
- Department of Radiology, Clínica Girona, Institute of Diagnostic Imaging (IDI) Girona, University of Girona, 17004, Girona, Spain
| | - Francesco Santini
- Department of Radiology, University Hospital of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
- Basel Muscle MRI, Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Ralf Mekle
- Center for Stroke Research Berlin (CSB), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Sonia Waiczies
- Max-Delbrück-Centrum Für Molekulare Medizin (MDC), Berlin Ultrahigh Field Facility, Berlin, Germany.
- Experimental and Clinical Research Center (ECRC), A Joint Cooperation Between the Charité Medical Faculty and the MDC, Berlin, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Inoue T, Shin T. Current magnetic resonance imaging-based diagnostic strategies for prostate cancer. Int J Urol 2023; 30:1078-1086. [PMID: 37592819 DOI: 10.1111/iju.15281] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2023] [Accepted: 08/02/2023] [Indexed: 08/19/2023]
Abstract
Recent developments in multiparametric MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy have made it possible to detect clinically significant cancers more accurately and efficiently than ever before. Furthermore, software that enables easy MRI/US image fusion has been developed and is already available on the market, and this has provided a tailwind for the spread of MRI-based prostate cancer diagnostic strategies. Such precise diagnosis of prostate cancer localization is essential for highly accurate focal therapy. In addition, a recent large-scale study applying MRI to community screening for prostate cancer has reported its usefulness. By contrast, concerns about overdiagnosis and overtreatment, the existence of inter-reader variability in MRI diagnosis, and issues with current MRI-targeted biopsy have emerged. In this article, we review the development of multiparametric MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy to date and the current issues and discuss future directions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Toru Inoue
- Department of Urology, Oita University Faculty of Medicine, Oita, Japan
| | - Toshitaka Shin
- Department of Urology, Oita University Faculty of Medicine, Oita, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Cheng K, Li L, Du Y, Wang J, Chen Z, Liu J, Zhang X, Dong L, Shen Y, Yang Z. A systematic review of image-guided, surgical robot-assisted percutaneous puncture: Challenges and benefits. MATHEMATICAL BIOSCIENCES AND ENGINEERING : MBE 2023; 20:8375-8399. [PMID: 37161203 DOI: 10.3934/mbe.2023367] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/11/2023]
Abstract
Percutaneous puncture is a common medical procedure that involves accessing an internal organ or tissue through the skin. Image guidance and surgical robots have been increasingly used to assist with percutaneous procedures, but the challenges and benefits of these technologies have not been thoroughly explored. The aims of this systematic review are to furnish an overview of the challenges and benefits of image-guided, surgical robot-assisted percutaneous puncture and to provide evidence on this approach. We searched several electronic databases for studies on image-guided, surgical robot-assisted percutaneous punctures published between January 2018 and December 2022. The final analysis refers to 53 studies in total. The results of this review suggest that image guidance and surgical robots can improve the accuracy and precision of percutaneous procedures, decrease radiation exposure to patients and medical personnel and lower the risk of complications. However, there are many challenges related to the use of these technologies, such as the integration of the robot and operating room, immature robotic perception, and deviation of needle insertion. In conclusion, image-guided, surgical robot-assisted percutaneous puncture offers many potential benefits, but further research is needed to fully understand the challenges and optimize the utilization of these technologies in clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kai Cheng
- Yantai Affiliated Hospital of Binzhou Medical University, Yantai, Shandong 264100, China
| | - Lixia Li
- Yantai Affiliated Hospital of Binzhou Medical University, Yantai, Shandong 264100, China
| | - Yanmin Du
- Yantai Affiliated Hospital of Binzhou Medical University, Yantai, Shandong 264100, China
| | - Jiangtao Wang
- Yantai Affiliated Hospital of Binzhou Medical University, Yantai, Shandong 264100, China
| | - Zhenghua Chen
- Yantai Affiliated Hospital of Binzhou Medical University, Yantai, Shandong 264100, China
| | - Jian Liu
- Yantai Affiliated Hospital of Binzhou Medical University, Yantai, Shandong 264100, China
| | - Xiangsheng Zhang
- Yantai Affiliated Hospital of Binzhou Medical University, Yantai, Shandong 264100, China
| | - Lin Dong
- Center on Frontiers of Computing Studies, Peking University, Beijing 100089, China
| | - Yuanyuan Shen
- Yantai Affiliated Hospital of Binzhou Medical University, Yantai, Shandong 264100, China
| | - Zhenlin Yang
- Yantai Affiliated Hospital of Binzhou Medical University, Yantai, Shandong 264100, China
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Robot-Assisted Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted versus Systematic Prostate Biopsy; Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:cancers15041181. [PMID: 36831524 PMCID: PMC9954527 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15041181] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/31/2022] [Revised: 02/01/2023] [Accepted: 02/08/2023] [Indexed: 02/16/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Robot-assisted devices have been recently developed for use in prostate biopsy. However, it is possible advantages over standard biopsy remain unclear. We aimed to assess the diagnostic performance and safety of robot-assisted targeted (RA-TB) and systematic prostate biopsies (RA-SB). METHODS A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE and Scopus databases. The detailed search strategy is available at Prospero (CRD42021269290). The primary outcome was the clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) detection rate. The secondary outcomes included the overall detection rate of PCa, cancer detection rate per core, and complications. RESULTS The clinically significant cancer detection rate, overall cancer detection rate, and "per patient" did not significantly differ between RA-TB and RA-SB [OR = 1.02 (95% CI 0.83; 1.26), p = 0.05, I2 = 62% and OR = 0.95 (95% CI 0.78; 1.17), p = 0.17, I2 = 40%, respectively]. There were no differences in the clinically insignificant cancer detection rate "per patient" between RA-TB and RA-SB [OR = 0.81 (95% CI 0.54; 1.21), p = 0.31, I2 = 0%]. RA-TB had a significantly higher cancer detection rate "per core" [OR = 3.01 (95% CI 2.77; 3.27), p < 0.0001, I2 = 96%]. CONCLUSION RA-TB and RA-SB are both technically feasible and have comparable clinical significance and overall PCa detection rates.
Collapse
|
7
|
Gravestock P, Somani BK, Tokas T, Rai BP. A Review of Modern Imaging Landscape for Prostate Cancer: A Comprehensive Clinical Guide. J Clin Med 2023; 12:jcm12031186. [PMID: 36769834 PMCID: PMC9918161 DOI: 10.3390/jcm12031186] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/20/2022] [Revised: 01/29/2023] [Accepted: 01/31/2023] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
The development of prostate cancer imaging is rapidly evolving, with many changes to the way patients are diagnosed, staged, and monitored for recurrence following treatment. New developments, including the potential role of imaging in screening and the combined diagnostic and therapeutic applications in the field of theranostics, are underway. In this paper, we aim to outline the current landscape in prostate cancer imaging and look to the future at the potential modalities and applications to come.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Gravestock
- Department of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne NE7 7DN, UK
| | - Bhaskar Kumar Somani
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK
| | - Theodoros Tokas
- Department of Urology and Andrology, General Hospital Hall in Tirol, 6060 Hall in Tirol, Austria
- Training and Research in Urological Surgery and Technology (T.R.U.S.T.)-Group, 6060 Hall in Tirol, Austria
| | - Bhavan Prasad Rai
- Department of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne NE7 7DN, UK
- Correspondence:
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
|
9
|
Prostate Cancer Detection Rate of Manually Operated and Robot-assisted In-bore Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy. EUR UROL SUPPL 2022; 41:88-94. [PMID: 35813252 PMCID: PMC9257664 DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.05.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/06/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The diagnostic efficacy regarding prostate cancer (PC) detection by manually operated in-bore magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) targeted prostate biopsy (MO-MRGB) versus robot-assisted in-bore MRI targeted prostate biopsy (RA-MRGB) is lacking evidence. Objective We hypothesized that the detection rates (DRs) for PC of MO-MRGB and RA-MRGB were similar and aimed to compare these. Design, setting, and participants We prospectively included all patients who received in-bore MRI targeted prostate biopsy (MRGB) of the prostate in the Central Denmark Region from August 2014 to February 2020. From August 2014, MO-MRGB was used, and from March 2018, RA-MRGB was preferred. Referral to in-bore MRGB was based on multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis We compared PC DRs of MO-MRGB and RA-MRGB with Pearson’s chi-square test. We made three binary regression models and calculated the risk difference (RD) of PC between the in-bore MRGB systems. Results and limitations A total of 3107 patients were referred to mpMRI, and 884 (28%) patients went on to receive in-bore MRGB. The MO-MRGB and RA-MRGB systems were used in 505 (57%) and 379 (43%) patients, respectively. Taking clinically relevant covariates into account, we found no statistically significant difference in PC DRs between MO-MRGB and RA-MRGB (72% vs 73%, RD 1%, 95% confidence interval –4% to 7%, p = 0.6). The main limitation was a shift in population characteristics. Conclusions We did not see evidence of an effect on the DR or the RD for PC when we compared MO-MRGB with RA-MRGB. Cost effectiveness should be considered carefully when choosing the MRGB system. Patient summary We compared two magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate tissue sampling systems regarding prostate cancer (PC) detection. One system was manually operated, and the other system was robot assisted. Comparing the systems, we found no evidence of a difference in their ability to detect PC.
Collapse
|
10
|
Panzone J, Byler T, Bratslavsky G, Goldberg H. Transrectal Ultrasound in Prostate Cancer: Current Utilization, Integration with mpMRI, HIFU and Other Emerging Applications. Cancer Manag Res 2022; 14:1209-1228. [PMID: 35345605 PMCID: PMC8957299 DOI: 10.2147/cmar.s265058] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/13/2021] [Accepted: 03/14/2022] [Indexed: 01/11/2023] Open
Abstract
Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) has been an invaluable tool in the assessment of prostate size, anatomy and aiding in prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis for decades. Emerging techniques warrant an investigation into the efficacy of TRUS, how it compares to new techniques, and options to increase the accuracy of prostate cancer diagnosis. Currently, TRUS is used to guide both transrectal and transperineal biopsy approaches with similar cancer detection rates, but lower rates of infection have been reported with the transperineal approach, while lower rates of urinary retention are often reported with the transrectal approach. Multiparametric MRI has substantial benefits for prostate cancer diagnosis and triage such as lesion location, grading, and can be combined with TRUS to perform fusion biopsies targeting specific lesions. Micro-ultrasound generates higher resolution images that traditional ultrasound and has been shown effective at diagnosing PCa, giving it the potential to become a future standard of care. Finally, high-intensity focused ultrasound focal therapy administered via TRUS has been shown to offer safe and effective short-term oncological control for localized disease with low morbidity, and the precise nature makes it a viable option for salvage and repeat therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John Panzone
- Urology Department, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA
| | - Timothy Byler
- Urology Department, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA
| | | | - Hanan Goldberg
- Urology Department, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Jager A, Vilanova JC, Michi M, Wijkstra H, Oddens JR. The challenge of prostate biopsy guidance in the era of mpMRI detected lesion: ultrasound-guided versus in-bore biopsy. Br J Radiol 2022; 95:20210363. [PMID: 34324383 PMCID: PMC8978231 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20210363] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
The current recommendation in patients with a clinical suspicion for prostate cancer is to perform systematic biopsies extended with targeted biopsies, depending on mpMRI results. Following a positive mpMRI [i.e. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) ≥3], three targeted biopsy approaches can be performed: visual registration of the MRI images with real-time ultrasound imaging; software-assisted fusion of the MRI images and real-time ultrasound images, and in-bore biopsy within the MR scanner. This collaborative review discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each targeting approach and elaborates on future developments. Cancer detection rates seem to mostly depend on practitioner experience and selection criteria (biopsy naïve, previous negative biopsy, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) selection criteria, presence of a lesion on MRI), and to a lesser extent dependent on biopsy technique. There is no clear consensus on the optimal targeting approach. The choice of technique depends on local experience and availability of equipment, individual patient characteristics, and onsite cost-benefit analysis. Innovations in imaging techniques and software-based algorithms may lead to further improvements in this field.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Auke Jager
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Joan C Vilanova
- Department of Radiology, Clinica Girona, Diagnostic Imaging Institute (IDI), University of Girona, Girona, Spain
| | - Massimo Michi
- Lab of Biomedical Diagnostics, Department of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Oerther B, Engel H, Bamberg F, Sigle A, Gratzke C, Benndorf M. Cancer detection rates of the PI-RADSv2.1 assessment categories: systematic review and meta-analysis on lesion level and patient level. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2021; 25:256-263. [PMID: 34230616 PMCID: PMC9184264 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-021-00417-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 99] [Impact Index Per Article: 24.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2021] [Revised: 06/05/2021] [Accepted: 06/22/2021] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, version 2.1 (PI-RADSv2.1) standardizes reporting of multiparametric MRI of the prostate. Assigned assessment categories are a risk stratification algorithm, higher categories indicate a higher probability of clinically significant cancer compared to lower categories. PI-RADSv2.1 does not define these probabilities numerically. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the cancer detection rates (CDR) of the PI-RADSv2.1 assessment categories on lesion level and patient level. METHODS Two independent reviewers screen a systematic PubMed and Cochrane CENTRAL search for relevant articles (primary outcome: clinically significant cancer, index test: prostate MRI reading according to PI-RADSv2.1, reference standard: histopathology). We perform meta-analyses of proportions with random-effects models for the CDR of the PI-RADSv2.1 assessment categories for clinically significant cancer. We perform subgroup analysis according to lesion localization to test for differences of CDR between peripheral zone lesions and transition zone lesions. RESULTS A total of 17 articles meet the inclusion criteria and data is independently extracted by two reviewers. Lesion level analysis includes 1946 lesions, patient level analysis includes 1268 patients. On lesion level analysis, CDR are 2% (95% confidence interval: 0-8%) for PI-RADS 1, 4% (1-9%) for PI-RADS 2, 20% (13-27%) for PI-RADS 3, 52% (43-61%) for PI-RADS 4, 89% (76-97%) for PI-RADS 5. On patient level analysis, CDR are 6% (0-20%) for PI-RADS 1, 9% (5-13%) for PI-RADS 2, 16% (7-27%) for PI-RADS 3, 59% (39-78%) for PI-RADS 4, 85% (73-94%) for PI-RADS 5. Higher categories are significantly associated with higher CDR (P < 0.001, univariate meta-regression), no systematic difference of CDR between peripheral zone lesions and transition zone lesions is identified in subgroup analysis. CONCLUSIONS Our estimates of CDR demonstrate that PI-RADSv2.1 stratifies lesions and patients as intended. Our results might serve as an initial evidence base to discuss management strategies linked to assessment categories.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benedict Oerther
- Department of Radiology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Germany, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Hannes Engel
- Department of Radiology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Germany, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Fabian Bamberg
- Department of Radiology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Germany, Freiburg, Germany
| | - August Sigle
- Department of Urology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Germany, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Christian Gratzke
- Department of Urology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Germany, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Matthias Benndorf
- Department of Radiology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Germany, Freiburg, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Velazco-Garcia JD, Navkar NV, Balakrishnan S, Younes G, Abi-Nahed J, Al-Rumaihi K, Darweesh A, Elakkad MSM, Al-Ansari A, Christoforou EG, Karkoub M, Leiss EL, Tsiamyrtzis P, Tsekos NV. Evaluation of how users interface with holographic augmented reality surgical scenes: Interactive planning MR-Guided prostate biopsies. Int J Med Robot 2021; 17:e2290. [PMID: 34060214 DOI: 10.1002/rcs.2290] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/19/2020] [Revised: 05/04/2021] [Accepted: 05/27/2021] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND User interfaces play a vital role in the planning and execution of an interventional procedure. The objective of this study is to investigate the effect of using different user interfaces for planning transrectal robot-assisted MR-guided prostate biopsy (MRgPBx) in an augmented reality (AR) environment. METHOD End-user studies were conducted by simulating an MRgPBx system with end- and side-firing modes. The information from the system to the operator was rendered on HoloLens as an output interface. Joystick, mouse/keyboard, and holographic menus were used as input interfaces to the system. RESULTS The studies indicated that using a joystick improved the interactive capacity and enabled operator to plan MRgPBx in less time. It efficiently captures the operator's commands to manipulate the augmented environment representing the state of MRgPBx system. CONCLUSIONS The study demonstrates an alternative to conventional input interfaces to interact and manipulate an AR environment within the context of MRgPBx planning.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Nikhil V Navkar
- Department of Surgery, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar
| | | | - Georges Younes
- Department of Surgery, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar
| | | | | | - Adham Darweesh
- Department of Clinical Imaging, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar
| | | | | | | | - Mansour Karkoub
- Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University-Qatar, Doha, Qatar
| | - Ernst L Leiss
- Department of Computer Science, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA
| | | | - Nikolaos V Tsekos
- Department of Computer Science, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|