Visually directed vs. software-based targeted biopsy compared to transperineal template mapping biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer

Valério, Massimo; McCartan, Neil; Freeman, Alex; Punwani, Shonit; Emberton, Mark; Ahmed, Hashim U.

doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.06.012

Cited by 49 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar results have been reported by Valerio and colleagues (48) in a cohort of 50 men undergoing visual, fusion and systematic transperineal biopsies. The Authors found that the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer was 32/50 (64%), 34/50 (68%) and 38/50 (76%) respectively and concluded that combining the two targeting approaches could minimize missed cancer rates, with a detection similar to systematic biopsies.…”

Section: Studies Comparing Multiple Mri-targeted Biopsy Techniquessupporting

confidence: 90%

A critical comparison of techniques for MRI-targeted biopsy of the prostate

Giganti¹,

Moore²

2017

Transl. Androl. Urol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

MRI-targeted biopsy is a promising technique that offers an improved detection of clinically significant prostate cancer over standard non-targeted biopsy. It is established that prostate MRI is of use in both the primary and repeat biopsy setting for the detection of significant prostate cancer. There are three approaches to targeting biopsies to areas of interest seen on prostate MRI. They each rely on the acquisition and reporting of a diagnostic quality multi-parametric MRI scan used to identify areas of interest, and the subsequent use of those diagnostic quality images in combination with real-time images of the prostate during the biopsy procedure. The three techniques are: visual registration of the MRI images with a real-time ultrasound image; software-assisted fusion of the MRI images and the real-time ultrasound images, and in-bore biopsy, which requires registration of a diagnostic quality MRI scan with a real time interventional MRI image. In this paper we compare the three techniques and evaluate those studies where there is a direct comparison of more than one MRI-targeting technique. PubMed was searched from inception to November 2016 using the search terms (cognitive registration OR visual registration OR fusion biopsy OR in-bore biopsy OR targeted biopsy) AND (prostate cancer OR prostate adenocarcinoma OR prostate carcinoma OR prostatic carcinoma OR prostatic adenocarcinoma) AND (MRI OR NMR OR magnetic resonance imaging OR mpMRI OR multiparametric MRI). The initial search included 731 abstracts. Eleven full text papers directly compared two or more techniques of MRI-targeting, and were selected for inclusion. The detection of clinically significant prostate cancer varied from 0% to 93.3% for visual registration, 23.2% to 100% for software-assisted registration and 29% to 80% for in-bore biopsy. Detection rates for clinically significant cancer are dependent on the prevalence of cancer within the population biopsied, which in turn is determined by the selection criteria [biopsy naïve, previous negative biopsy, prostate specific antigen (PSA) selection criteria, presence of a lesion on MRI]. Cancer detection rates varied more between study populations than between biopsy approaches. Currently there is no consensus on which type of MRI-targeted biopsy performs better in a given setting. Although there have been studies supporting each of the three techniques, substantial differences in methodology and reporting the findings make it difficult to reliably compare their outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Studies Comparing Multiple Mri-targeted Biopsy Techniquessupporting

confidence: 90%

A critical comparison of techniques for MRI-targeted biopsy of the prostate

Giganti¹,

Moore²

2017

Transl. Androl. Urol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…n Cognitive: The patient undergoes a standard TRUSguided biopsy, but in addition the operator biopsies the MRI target based on visual anatomic coregistration. As might be expected, several studies [50][51][52], including a prospective comparative trial, have confirmed the inferiority of this approach.…”

Section: Trussupporting

confidence: 62%

ACR Appropriateness Criteria ® Prostate Cancer—Pretreatment Detection, Surveillance, and Staging

Imaging

2017

Journal of the American College of Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the frequent statement that "most men die with prostate cancer, not of it," the reality is that prostate cancer is second only to lung cancer as a cause of death from malignancy in American men. The primary goal during baseline evaluation of prostate cancer is disease characterization, that is, establishing disease presence, extent (local and distant), and aggressiveness. Prostate cancer is usually diagnosed after the finding of a suspicious serum prostate-specific antigen level or digital rectal examination. Tissue diagnosis may be obtained by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy or MRI-targeted biopsy. The latter requires a preliminary multiparametric MRI, which has emerged as a powerful and relatively accurate tool for the local evaluation of prostate cancer over the last few decades. Bone scintigraphy and CT are primarily used to detect bone and nodal metastases in patients found to have intermediate- or high-risk disease at biopsy. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

show abstract

“…Third, a greater number of patients need to be examined to evaluate the accuracy of mpMRI/TRUS fusion in detecting PCa with low cancer volume and Gleason score ≥7; furthermore, a higher volume of mpMRI/TRUS fusion biopsies would be helpful to rule out learning curve error as a potential cause for inaccurate biopsy technique. Finally, the diagnostic ability of visually directed mpMRI targeted biopsies could improve PCa detection [30].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%