1
|
Brodsky CN, Daignault-Newton S, Davenport MS, Marchetti KA, Goh M, Wei JT. How Many Cores Should Be Collected per Region of Interest in Fusion Targeted Prostate Biopsy? A Retrospective Single Institution Statistical Simulation. Urology 2024:S0090-4295(24)01223-8. [PMID: 39730113 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2024.12.033] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/19/2024] [Revised: 12/04/2024] [Accepted: 12/20/2024] [Indexed: 12/29/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine how many cores should be collected per region of interest (ROI) in magnetic resonance imaging-guided fusion prostate biopsy. Magnetic resonance imaging-guided targeted prostate biopsy has led to improved detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC); however, data is limited regarding the optimal number of biopsy cores that should be taken. An ideal number of cores maximizes clinically significant cancer detection while minimizing cost, discomfort, and procedure time. METHODS Patients receiving targeted prostate biopsy (4 cores per ROI) combined with systematic 12-core prostate at our institution between January 2017 and June 2022 were retrospectively identified. Statistical simulation was used to model scenarios in which 1, 2, 3, or 4 cores were taken from the ROI, and the rate of grade group ≥2 prostate cancer (csPC) detection was determined for targeted and combined targeted plus systematic biopsy. RESULTS 483 patients were identified. Transrectal (96%) and transperineal (4%) biopsies were included. For targeted biopsy, csPC was present in 21% (1 core), 26% (2 cores; P = .048), 29% (3 cores; P = .002), and 31% (4 cores; P < .001) of cases. For combined biopsy, csPC was present in 33% (1 core), 35% (2 cores; P = .4), 37% (3 cores; P = .2), and 38% (4 cores; P = .12) of cases. CONCLUSION If targeted biopsy is performed without systematic biopsy, 2 or more cores is superior to 1 core for detecting csPC. This effect is mitigated when targeted and systematic biopsy are combined.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Casey N Brodsky
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
| | | | - Matthew S Davenport
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Kathryn A Marchetti
- Department of Urology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA
| | - Meidee Goh
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - John T Wei
- Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Zattoni F, Fasulo V, Kasivisvanathan V, Kesch C, Marra G, Martini A, Falagario U, Soeterik T, van den Bergh R, Rajwa P, Gandaglia G. Enhancing Prostate Cancer Detection Accuracy in Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsy: Optimizing the Number of Cores Taken. EUR UROL SUPPL 2024; 66:16-25. [PMID: 39027654 PMCID: PMC11254588 DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2024.05.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/31/2024] [Indexed: 07/20/2024] Open
Abstract
Background and objective The shift toward targeted biopsy (TBx) aims at enhancing prostate cancer (PCa) detection while reducing overdiagnosis of clinically insignificant disease. Despite the improved ability of TBx in identifying clinically significant PCa (csPCa), the optimal number and location of targeted cores remain unclear. This review aims to assess the optimal number of prostate biopsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted cores to detect csPCa. Methods A narrative literature search was conducted using PubMed, focusing on studies published between January 2014 and January 2024, addressing factors influencing targeted core numbers during prostate biopsy. The search included both retrospective and prospective studies, prioritizing those with substantial sample sizes and employing terms such as "prostate biopsy", "mpMRI", "core number", and "cancer detection". Key findings and limitations Two biopsy cores identified csPCa in 55-65% of cases. This detection rate improved to approximately 90% when the number of cores was ≥5. The inclusion of perilesional and systematic biopsies could maximize the detection of csPCa (from 10% to 45%), especially in patients under active surveillance or with prior negative biopsy results, although there is an increase in the overdiagnosis of indolent tumors (from 4% to 20%). Transperineal software-assisted target prostate biopsy may enhance cancer detection, particularly for tumors located at the apex/anterior part of the prostate. Increasing the number of TBx cores may incrementally raise the risk of complications (by 2-14% with each added core) and result in severe pain and significant discomfort for up to 17% and 25% of TBx patients, respectively. However, the overall rate and severity of these complications remain within acceptable limits. Conclusions and clinical implications The optimal number of cores for targeted prostate biopsies should balance minimizing sampling errors with effective cancer detection and should be tailored to each patient's unique prostate characteristics. Up to five cores per MRI target may be considered to enhance the detection of csPCa, with adjustments based on factors such as prostate and lesion volume, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, biopsy techniques, complications, patient discomfort, and anxiety. Patient summary In this report, we found that increasing the number of biopsy cores up to ≥5 improves the detection rates of significant prostate cancer significantly to around 90%. Although inclusion of nearby and systematic biopsies enhances detection, increasing the biopsy count may lead to higher risks of complications and indolent tumors. A customized biopsy approach based on multiple variables could be helpful in determining the appropriate number of targeted biopsies on a case-by-case basis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fabio Zattoni
- Urology Clinic, Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
- Department of Medicine - DIMED, University of Padua, Italy
| | - Vittorio Fasulo
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - Veeru Kasivisvanathan
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
| | - Claudia Kesch
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Giancarlo Marra
- Department of Surgical Sciences, Division of Urology, University of Turin and Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy
| | - Alberto Martini
- Department of Urology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ugo Falagario
- Department of Urology, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy
- Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Timo Soeterik
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | - Pawel Rajwa
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Silesia, Zabrze, Poland
| | - Giorgio Gandaglia
- Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - EAU-YAU Prostate Cancer Working Party (PCa-WP)
- Urology Clinic, Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
- Department of Medicine - DIMED, University of Padua, Italy
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy
- Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy
- Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
- Department of Surgical Sciences, Division of Urology, University of Turin and Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy
- Department of Urology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
- Department of Urology, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy
- Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Department of Urology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Urology, Medical University of Silesia, Zabrze, Poland
- Unit of Urology/Division of Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Alzubaidi AN, Zheng A, Said M, Fan X, Maidaa M, Owens RG, Yudovich M, Pursnani S, Owens RS, Stringer T, Tracy CR, Raman JD. Prior Negative Biopsy, PSA Density, and Anatomic Location Impact Cancer Detection Rate of MRI-Targeted PI-RADS Index Lesions. Curr Oncol 2024; 31:4406-4413. [PMID: 39195312 PMCID: PMC11353048 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol31080329] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/20/2024] [Revised: 07/24/2024] [Accepted: 07/24/2024] [Indexed: 08/29/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND MRI fusion prostate biopsy has improved the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSC). Continued refinements in predicting the pre-biopsy probability of CSC are essential for optimal patient counseling. We investigated potential factors related to improved cancer detection rates (CDR) of CSC in patients with PI-RADS ≥ 3 lesions. METHODS The pathology of 980 index lesions in 980 patients sampled by transrectal mpMRI-targeted prostate biopsy across four medical centers between 2017-2020 was reviewed. PI-RADS lesion distribution included 291 PI-RADS-5, 374 PI-RADS-4, and 315 PI-RADS-3. We compared CDR of index PI-RADS ≥ 3 lesions based on location (TZ) vs. (PZ), PSA density (PSAD), and history of prior negative conventional transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS). RESULTS Mean age, PSA, prostate volume, and level of prior negative TRUS biopsy were 66 years (43-90), 7.82 ng/dL (5.6-11.2), 54 cm3 (12-173), and 456/980 (46.5%), respectively. Higher PSAD, no prior history of negative TRUS biopsy, and PZ lesions were associated with higher CDR. Stratified CDR highlighted significant variance across subgroups. CDR for a PI-RADS-5 score, PZ lesion with PSAD ≥ 0.15, and prior negative biopsy was 77%. Conversely, the CDR rate for a PI-RADS-4 score, TZ lesion with PSAD < 0.15, and prior negative biopsy was significantly lower at 14%. CONCLUSIONS For index PI-RADS ≥ 3 lesions, CDR varied significantly based on location, prior history of negative TRUS biopsy, and PSAD. Such considerations are critical when counseling on the merits and potential yield of prostate needle biopsy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ahmad N. Alzubaidi
- Department of Urology, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA 17033, USA; (A.N.A.)
| | - Amy Zheng
- Pennsylvania State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA 17033, USA
| | - Mohammad Said
- Department of Urology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA (R.G.O.); (C.R.T.)
| | - Xuanjia Fan
- Pennsylvania State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA 17033, USA
| | - Michael Maidaa
- Department of Urology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
| | - R. Grant Owens
- Department of Urology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA (R.G.O.); (C.R.T.)
| | - Max Yudovich
- Department of Urology, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA 17033, USA; (A.N.A.)
| | - Suraj Pursnani
- Department of Urology, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA 17033, USA; (A.N.A.)
| | | | - Thomas Stringer
- Department of Urology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
| | - Chad R. Tracy
- Department of Urology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA (R.G.O.); (C.R.T.)
| | - Jay D. Raman
- Department of Urology, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA 17033, USA; (A.N.A.)
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Gross M, Eisenhuber E, Assinger P, Schima R, Susani M, Doblhammer S, Schima W. MRI-guided in-bore biopsy of the prostate - defining the optimal number of cores needed. Cancer Imaging 2024; 24:81. [PMID: 38956721 PMCID: PMC11218164 DOI: 10.1186/s40644-024-00734-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/24/2023] [Accepted: 06/25/2024] [Indexed: 07/04/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Numerous studies have shown that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy approaches are superior to traditional systematic transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy (TRUS-Bx). The optimal number of biopsy cores to be obtained per lesion identified on multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) images, however, remains a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incremental value of additional biopsy cores in an MRI-targeted "in-bore"-biopsy (MRI-Bx) setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS Two hundred and forty-five patients, who underwent MRI-Bx between June 2014 and September 2021, were included in this retrospective single-center analysis. All lesions were biopsied with at least five biopsy cores and cumulative detection rates for any cancer (PCa) as well as detection rates of clinically significant cancers (csPCa) were calculated for each sequentially labeled biopsy core. The cumulative per-core detection rates are presented as whole numbers and as proportion of the maximum detection rate reached, when all biopsy cores were considered. CsPCa was defined as Gleason Score (GS) ≥ 7 (3 + 4). RESULTS One hundred and thirty-two of 245 Patients (53.9%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer and csPCa was found in 64 (26.1%) patients. The first biopsy core revealed csPCa/ PCa in 76.6% (49/64)/ 81.8% (108/132) of cases. The second, third and fourth core found csPCa/ PCa not detected by previous cores in 10.9% (7/64)/ 8.3% (11/132), 7.8% (5/64)/ 5.3% (7/132) and 3.1% (2/64)/ 3% (4/132) of cases, respectively. Obtaining one or more cores beyond the fourth biopsy core resulted in an increase in detection rate of 1.6% (1/64)/ 1.5% (2/132). CONCLUSION We found that obtaining five cores per lesion maximized detection rates. If, however, future research should establish a clear link between the incidence of serious complications and the number of biopsy cores obtained, a three-core biopsy might suffice as our results suggest that about 95% of all csPCa are detected by the first three cores.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Moritz Gross
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Goettlicher Heiland Krankenhaus, Barmherzige Schwestern Krankenhaus, and Sankt Josef Krankenhaus, Dornbacher Strasse 20-30, Vienna, 1170, Austria
| | - Edith Eisenhuber
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Goettlicher Heiland Krankenhaus, Barmherzige Schwestern Krankenhaus, and Sankt Josef Krankenhaus, Dornbacher Strasse 20-30, Vienna, 1170, Austria
| | - Petra Assinger
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Goettlicher Heiland Krankenhaus, Barmherzige Schwestern Krankenhaus, and Sankt Josef Krankenhaus, Dornbacher Strasse 20-30, Vienna, 1170, Austria
| | | | - Martin Susani
- Varga, Braun, Pathology Laboratory, Vienna, 1210, Austria
| | | | - Wolfgang Schima
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Goettlicher Heiland Krankenhaus, Barmherzige Schwestern Krankenhaus, and Sankt Josef Krankenhaus, Dornbacher Strasse 20-30, Vienna, 1170, Austria.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Bevill MD, Drobish JN, Flynn KJ, Rajput M, Metz C, Tracy CR, Gellhaus PT. Does a large prostate size, small lesion volume, or long needle distance from the probe to the lesion reduce magnetic resonance imaging-targeted cancer detection? Curr Urol 2024; 18:144-147. [PMID: 39176298 PMCID: PMC11337985 DOI: 10.1097/cu9.0000000000000171] [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: 04/24/2022] [Accepted: 08/09/2022] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
Background We aimed to evaluate whether large prostate size, small lesion volume, or long lesion distance from the ultrasound probe tip would decrease cancer detection in transrectal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsies. Materials and methods Patients who underwent MRI-targeted biopsy at our institution between May 2017 and August 2019 were enrolled in a prospective database. Three to 5 cores were obtained from ≥2 prostate imaging reporting and data system v2 lesions. A multivariable model was created that included needle distance to the lesion, prostate specific antigen, prostate imaging reporting and data system, lesion volume, and prostate volume. Results A total of 377 patients with 533 lesions underwent a biopsy during the study period. A total of 233 (44%) lesions were positive for prostate cancer, and 173 (32%) lesions had clinically significant prostate cancer. The mean needle distance to the lesion was 11.7 mm (interquartile range, 7.6-15.5 mm). The likelihood of obtaining a positive core on biopsy decreased as the distance from the ultrasound probe increased for all prostate cancers and clinically significant prostate cancer (p = 0.018 and p = 0.004, respectively). Every 10 mm from the rectum, there was an 8%-10% decrease in the rate of cancer detection. Similarly, as the prostate volume increased, the odds of obtaining a positive core also decreased (p = 0.039). There was no significant association between the lesion size and amount of cancer obtained on biopsy. Conclusions Our data showed that transrectal MRI-targeted biopsy cancer detection modestly decreased the lesion from the ultrasound probe and with a large prostate volume but could not prove that lesion volume was a significant predictor of the amount of cancer detected.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mark D. Bevill
- Department of Urology, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA
| | - Justin N. Drobish
- Department of Urology, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA
| | - Kevin J. Flynn
- Department of Urology, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA
| | - Maheen Rajput
- Department of Radiology, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA
| | - Catherine Metz
- Department of Radiology, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA
| | - Chad R. Tracy
- Department of Urology, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA
| | - Paul T. Gellhaus
- Department of Urology, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Girometti R, Giannarini G, Peruzzi V, Amparore D, Pizzolitto S, Zuiani C. MRI-informed prostate biopsy: What the radiologist should know on quality in biopsy planning and biopsy acquisition. Eur J Radiol 2023; 164:110852. [PMID: 37167683 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110852] [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: 02/28/2023] [Revised: 04/17/2023] [Accepted: 04/26/2023] [Indexed: 05/13/2023]
Abstract
Quality is currently recognized as the pre-requisite for delivering the clinical benefits expected by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-informed prostate biopsy (MRI-i-PB) in patients with a suspicion for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). The "quality chain" underlying MRI-i-PB is multidisciplinary in nature, and depends on several factors related to the patient, imaging technique, image interpretation and biopsy procedure. This review aims at making the radiologist aware of biopsy-related factors impacting on MRI-i-PB quality, both in terms of biopsy planning (threshold for biopsy decisions, association with systematic biopsy and number of targeted cores) and biopsy acquisition (biopsy route, targeting technique, and operator's experience). While there is still space for improvement and better standardization of several biopsy-related procedures, current evidence suggests that high-quality MRI-i-PB can be delivered by acquiring and increased the number of biopsy cores targeted to suspicious imaging findings and perilesional area ("focal saturation biopsy"). On the other hand, uncertainty still exists as to whether software-assisted fusion of MRI and transrectal ultrasound images can outperform cognitive fusion strategy. The role for operator's experience and quality assurance/quality control procedures are also discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rossano Girometti
- Institute of Radiology, Department of Medicine, University of Udine, University Hospital S. Maria della Misericordia, p.le S. Maria della Misericordia n. 15, 33100 Udine, Italy.
| | - Gianluca Giannarini
- Urology Unit, University Hospital Santa Maria della Misericordia, p.le S. Maria della Misericordia n. 15, 33100 Udine, Italy.
| | - Valeria Peruzzi
- Institute of Radiology, Department of Medicine, University of Udine, University Hospital S. Maria della Misericordia, p.le S. Maria della Misericordia n. 15, 33100 Udine, Italy.
| | - Daniele Amparore
- Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, University of Turin, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, Torino, Italy.
| | - Stefano Pizzolitto
- Unit of Pathology, University Hospital S. Maria della Misericordia, p.le S. Maria della Misericordia n. 15, 33100 Udine, Italy.
| | - Chiara Zuiani
- Institute of Radiology, Department of Medicine, University of Udine, University Hospital S. Maria della Misericordia, p.le S. Maria della Misericordia n. 15, 33100 Udine, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Martin R, Belahsen Y, Noujeim JP, Lefebvre Y, Lemort M, Deforche M, Sirtaine N, Roumeguere T, Albisinni S, Peltier A, Diamand R. Optimizing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy and detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: the role of core number and location. World J Urol 2023:10.1007/s00345-023-04386-z. [PMID: 37010577 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-023-04386-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/23/2022] [Accepted: 03/28/2023] [Indexed: 04/04/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE There is currently no consensus regarding the optimal number of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy (TB) cores and their spatial distribution within the MRI lesion. We aim to determine the number of TB cores and location needed to adequately detect csPCa. METHODS We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 505 consecutive patients undergoing TB for positive MRI lesions defined by a PI-RADS score ≥ 3 between June 2016 and January 2022. Cores chronology and locations were prospectively recorded. The co-primary outcomes were the first core to detect clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and the first highest ISUP grade group. The incremental benefit of each additional core was evaluated. Analysis was then performed by distinguishing central (cTB) and peripheral (pTB) within the MRI lesion. RESULTS Overall, csPCa was detected in 37% of patients. To reach a csPCa detection rate of 95%, a 3-core strategy was required, except for patients with PI-RADS 5 lesions and those with PSA density ≥ 0.2 ng/ml/cc who benefited from a fourth TB core. At multivariable analysis, only a PSA density ≥ 0.2 ng/ml/cc was an independent predictive factor of having the highest ISUP grade group on the fourth TB cores (p = 0.03). No significant difference in the cancer detection rate was found between cTB and pTB (p = 0.9). Omitting pTB would miss 18% of all csPCa. CONCLUSION A 3-core strategy should be considered for TB to optimize csPCa detection with additional cores needed for PI-RADS 5 lesions and high PSA density. Biopsy cores from both central and peripheral zones are required.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robin Martin
- Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Rue Meylemeersch 90, 1070, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Yassir Belahsen
- Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Rue Meylemeersch 90, 1070, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Jean-Paul Noujeim
- Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Rue Meylemeersch 90, 1070, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Yolene Lefebvre
- Department of Radiology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Marc Lemort
- Department of Radiology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Maxime Deforche
- Department of Radiology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Nicolas Sirtaine
- Department of Pathology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Thierry Roumeguere
- Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Rue Meylemeersch 90, 1070, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Simone Albisinni
- Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Rue Meylemeersch 90, 1070, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Alexandre Peltier
- Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Rue Meylemeersch 90, 1070, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Romain Diamand
- Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute-Erasme Hospital, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Rue Meylemeersch 90, 1070, Brussels, Belgium.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Kotamarti S, Polascik TJ. Focal cryotherapy for prostate cancer: a contemporary literature review. ANNALS OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE 2023; 11:26. [PMID: 36760265 PMCID: PMC9906190 DOI: 10.21037/atm-21-5033] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2021] [Accepted: 12/23/2021] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
Objective To perform a comprehensive review of the contemporary literature regarding both functional and oncologic outcomes after primary focal cryotherapy for prostate cancer (PCa), providing these results as a foundation for discussing recent developments in the realm of focal therapy. Background Traditional treatments for PCa are often associated with debilitating functional side effects for patients. Due to advances in imaging and biopsy strategies, focal ablative therapies recently have garnered much interest and offer an alternative primary treatment for PCa patients with localized disease. Focal cryoablation utilizes heat extraction from tissues to generate an iceball and cause tissue destruction while sparing uninvolved prostatic regions. Optimized patient selection and postoperative management continue to be areas of interest and study as the field continues to develop. Methods A search was performed of the PubMed and Embase databases to identify articles pertaining to primary focal PCa cryoablation since our group's last comprehensive review in 2016. Conclusions Primary focal cryoablation for PCa offers optimized functional outcomes and a favorable adverse event profile. True evaluation of oncologic outcomes is hampered by lack of long-term follow-up and highly variable clinical endpoints across these studies. Nonetheless, outcomes appear adequate in the short- to medium-term time frame. Utilization of focal cryoablation is expected to grow with continued refinement of patient selection and management options in cases of treatment failure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Srinath Kotamarti
- Division of Urologic Surgery, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Thomas J Polascik
- Division of Urologic Surgery, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
How many cores should be taken from each region of interest when performing a targeted transrectal biopsy? Prostate Int 2023. [DOI: 10.1016/j.prnil.2023.01.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/15/2023] Open
|
10
|
Raman AG, Sarma KV, Raman SS, Priester AM, Mirak SA, Riskin-Jones HH, Dhinagar N, Speier W, Felker E, Sisk AE, Lu D, Kinnaird A, Reiter RE, Marks LS, Arnold CW. Optimizing Spatial Biopsy Sampling for the Detection of Prostate Cancer. J Urol 2021; 206:595-603. [PMID: 33908801 PMCID: PMC8903239 DOI: 10.1097/ju.0000000000001832] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/13/2021] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE The appropriate number of systematic biopsy cores to retrieve during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted prostate biopsy is not well defined. We aimed to demonstrate a biopsy sampling approach that reduces required core count while maintaining diagnostic performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS We collected data from a cohort of 971 men who underwent MRI-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy for suspected prostate cancer. A regional targeted biopsy (RTB) was evaluated retrospectively; only cores within 2 cm of the margin of a radiologist-defined region of interest were considered part of the RTB. We compared detection rates for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and cancer upgrading rate on final whole mount pathology after prostatectomy between RTB, combined, MRI-targeted, and systematic biopsy. RESULTS A total of 16,459 total cores from 971 men were included in the study data sets, of which 1,535 (9%) contained csPCa. The csPCa detection rates for systematic, MRI-targeted, combined, and RTB were 27.0% (262/971), 38.3% (372/971), 44.8% (435/971), and 44.0% (427/971), respectively. Combined biopsy detected significantly more csPCa than systematic and MRI-targeted biopsy (p <0.001 and p=0.004, respectively) but was similar to RTB (p=0.71), which used on average 3.8 (22%) fewer cores per patient. In 102 patients who underwent prostatectomy, there was no significant difference in upgrading rates between RTB and combined biopsy (p=0.84). CONCLUSIONS A RTB approach can maintain state-of-the-art detection rates while requiring fewer retrieved cores. This result informs decision making about biopsy site selection and total retrieved core count.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alex G. Raman
- Computational Diagnostics Lab, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
- Department of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Karthik V. Sarma
- Computational Diagnostics Lab, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
- Department of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Steven S. Raman
- Department of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Alan M. Priester
- Department of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
- Department of Bioengineering, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Sohrab Afshari Mirak
- Department of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Hannah H. Riskin-Jones
- Department of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Nikhil Dhinagar
- Computational Diagnostics Lab, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
- Department of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - William Speier
- Computational Diagnostics Lab, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
- Department of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Ely Felker
- Department of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Anthony E. Sisk
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - David Lu
- Department of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Adam Kinnaird
- Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
| | - Robert E. Reiter
- Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Leonard S. Marks
- Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Corey W. Arnold
- Computational Diagnostics Lab, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
- Department of Radiological Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
- Department of Bioengineering, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Wenzel M, Würnschimmel C, Ruvolo CC, Nocera L, Tian Z, Saad F, Briganti A, Tilki D, Graefen M, Kluth LA, Mandel P, Chun FKH, Karakiewicz PI. Increasing rates of NCCN high and very high-risk prostate cancer versus number of prostate biopsy cores. Prostate 2021; 81:874-881. [PMID: 34184780 DOI: 10.1002/pros.24184] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/19/2021] [Revised: 05/27/2021] [Accepted: 06/07/2021] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Recently, an increase in the rates of high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) was reported. We tested whether the rates of and low, intermediate, high and very high-risk PCa changed over time. We also tested whether the number of prostate biopsy cores contributed to changes rates over time. METHODS Within the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database (2010-2015), annual rates of low, intermediate, high-risk according to traditional National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and high versus very high-risk PCa according to Johns Hopkins classification were tabulated without and with adjustment for the number of prostate biopsy cores. RESULTS In 119,574 eligible prostate cancer patients, the rates of NCCN low, intermediate, and high-risk PCa were, respectively, 29.7%, 47.8%, and 22.5%. Of high-risk patients, 39.6% and 60.4% fulfilled high and very high-risk criteria. Without adjustment for number of prostate biopsy cores, the estimated annual percentage changes (EAPC) for low, intermediate, high and very high-risk were respectively -5.5% (32.4%-24.9%, p < .01), +0.5% (47.6%-48.4%, p = .09), +4.1% (8.2%-9.9%, p < .01), and +8.9% (11.8%-16.9%, p < .01), between 2010 and 2015. After adjustment for number of prostate biopsy cores, differences in rates over time disappeared and ranged from 29.8%-29.7% for low risk, 47.9%-47.9% for intermediate risk, 8.9%-9.0% for high-risk, and 13.6%-13.6% for very high-risk PCa (all p > .05). CONCLUSIONS The rates of high and very high-risk PCa are strongly associated with the number of prostate biopsy cores, that in turn may be driven by broader use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mike Wenzel
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Christoph Würnschimmel
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Claudia C Ruvolo
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy
| | - Luigi Nocera
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
- Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IBCAS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Zhe Tian
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Fred Saad
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Alberto Briganti
- Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IBCAS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Derya Tilki
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Markus Graefen
- Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Luis A Kluth
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Philipp Mandel
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Felix K H Chun
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Pierre I Karakiewicz
- Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Diagnostic Yield of Incremental Biopsy Cores and Second Lesion Sampling for In-Gantry MRI-Guided Prostate Biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021; 217:908-918. [PMID: 33336582 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.20.24918] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/22/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND. In-gantry MRI-guided biopsy (MRGB) of the prostate has been shown to be more accurate than other targeted prostate biopsy methods. However, the optimal number of cores to obtain during in-gantry MRGB remains undetermined. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic yield of obtaining an incremental number of cores from the primary lesion and of second lesion sampling during in-gantry MRGB of the prostate. METHODS. This retrospective study included 128 men with 163 prostate lesions who underwent in-gantry MRGB between 2016 and 2019. The men had a total of 163 lesions sampled with two or more cores, 121 lesions sampled with three or more cores, and 52 lesions sampled with four or more cores. A total of 40 men underwent sampling of a second lesion. Upgrade on a given core was defined as a greater International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group (GG) relative to the previously obtained cores. Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined as ISUP GG 2 or greater. RESULTS. The frequency of any upgrade was 12.9% (21/163) on core 2 versus 10.7% (13/121) on core 3 (p = .29 relative to core 2) and 1.9% (1/52) on core 4 (p = .03 relative to core 3). The frequency of upgrade to csPCa was 7.4% (12/163) on core 2 versus 4.1% (5/121) on core 3 (p = .13 relative to core 2) and 0% (0/52) on core 4 (p = .07 relative to core 3). The frequency of upgrade on core 2 was higher for anterior lesions (p < .001) and lesions with a higher PI-RADS score (p = .007); the frequency of upgrade on core 3 was higher for apical lesions (p = .01) and lesions with a higher PI-RADS score (p = .01). Sampling of a second lesion resulted in an upgrade in a single patient (2.5%; 1/40); both lesions were PI-RADS category 4 and showed csPCa. CONCLUSION. When performing in-gantry MRGB of the prostate, obtaining three cores from the primary lesion is warranted to optimize csPCa diagnosis. Obtaining a fourth core from the primary lesion or sampling a second lesion has very low yield in upgrading cancer diagnoses. CLINICAL IMPACT. To reduce patient discomfort and procedure times, operators may refrain from obtaining more than three cores or second lesion sampling.
Collapse
|