Magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound cognitive fusion targeted biopsy on the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a research of 614 cases in single center_Journal of Biomedical Engineering

Authors：

LI Derun ^1,2,3 , LIU Yi ^1,2,3 , LI Zhihua ^1,2,3 , LI Shuqing ^1,2,3 , SHAN Gangzhi ^1,2,3 ,  YAO Lin ^1,2,3

1. Department of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing 100034, P.R.China;
2. Institute of Urology, Peking University, Beijing 100034, P.R.China;
3. National Urological Cancer Center, Beijing 100034, P.R.China;

Corresponding author：

YAO Lin, Email: poparies@163.com

Keywords：

transrectal prostate biopsy; cognitive fusion targeted biopsy; targeted biopsy

DOI：

10.7507/1001-5515.201911076

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

This study aims to compare the prostate cancer detection rate between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) cognitive fusion targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy. A total of 614 patients who underwent transrectal prostate biopsy during 2016-2018 with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) were included. All patients with a PI-RADS V2 score ≥ 3 accepted both targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy, and those with a PI-RADS V2 score ≤ 2 only accepted systematic biopsy. Overall prostate cancer detection rate between the two biopsies was compared. MRI-TRUS cognitive fusion targeted biopsy identified 342 cases (75.7%) of prostate cancer while systematic biopsy identified 358 cases (79.2%). There was no significant difference in the detection rate between the two groups (χ² = 1.621, P = 0.203). Targeted biopsy had significant fewer biopsy cores compared with systematic biopsy, reducing (9.3 ± 0.11) cores (P < 0.001) in average. Targeted biopsy had about 10.8% (P < 0.001) more tumor tissues in positive cores compared with systematic biopsy. The results show that both MRI-TRUS cognitive fusion targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy have good detection rate on prostate cancer. Cognitive targeted biopsy may reduce biopsy cores and provide more tumor tissues in positive cores.

Citation： LI Derun, LIU Yi, LI Zhihua, LI Shuqing, SHAN Gangzhi, YAO Lin. Magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound cognitive fusion targeted biopsy on the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a research of 614 cases in single center. Journal of Biomedical Engineering, 2020, 37(2): 225-229. doi: 10.7507/1001-5515.201911076 Copy

1.	Siegel, R L, Miller K D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA A Cancer J Clin, 2019, 69(1): 7-34.
2.	韩苏军, 张思维, 陈万青, 等. 中国前列腺癌发病现状和流行趋势分析. 临床肿瘤学杂志, 2013, 18(4): 330-334.
3.	Drost F H, Osses D F, Nieboer D, et al. Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2019, 4. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012663.
4.	Weinreb J C, Barentsz J O, Choyke P L, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging-reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol, 2016, 69(1): 16-40.
5.	Rosenkrantz A B, Ginocchio L A, Cornfeld1 D, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS version 2 Lexicon: A multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology, 2016, 280(3): 793-804.
6.	Smeenge M, Barentsz J, Cosgrove D, et al. Role of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) in focal therapy of prostate cancer: report from a Consensus Panel. BJU Int, 2012, 110(7): 942-948.
7.	Ahmed H U, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown L C, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet, 2017, 389(171): 815-822.
8.	Wegelin O, Van Melick H H, Hooft L, et al. Comparing three different techniques for magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsies: a systematic review of in-bore versus magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion versus cognitive registration. Is there a preferred technique?. Eur Urol, 2017, 71(4): 517-531.
9.	Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, et al. 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(1): 100-109.
10.	Van Der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B, et al. 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(4): 570-578.
11.	Bratan F, Niaf E, Melodelima C, et al. Influence of imaging and histological factors on prostate cancer detection and localisation on multiparametric MRI: a prospective study. Eur Radiol, 2013, 23(7): 2019-2029.
12.	Epstein J I, Egevad L, Muhammad Behrul Amin, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol, 2016, 40(2): 244-252.
13.	Muller B G, Shih J H, Sankineni S, et al. Prostate cancer: Interobserver agreement and accuracy with the revised Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System at multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology, 2015, 277(3): 741-750.
14.	Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz A B, et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1: 2019 update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2. Eur Urol, 2019, 76(3): 340-351.

1. Siegel, R L, Miller K D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA A Cancer J Clin, 2019, 69(1): 7-34.
2. 韩苏军, 张思维, 陈万青, 等. 中国前列腺癌发病现状和流行趋势分析. 临床肿瘤学杂志, 2013, 18(4): 330-334.
3. Drost F H, Osses D F, Nieboer D, et al. Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2019, 4. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012663.
4. Weinreb J C, Barentsz J O, Choyke P L, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging-reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol, 2016, 69(1): 16-40.
5. Rosenkrantz A B, Ginocchio L A, Cornfeld1 D, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS version 2 Lexicon: A multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology, 2016, 280(3): 793-804.
6. Smeenge M, Barentsz J, Cosgrove D, et al. Role of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) in focal therapy of prostate cancer: report from a Consensus Panel. BJU Int, 2012, 110(7): 942-948.
7. Ahmed H U, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown L C, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet, 2017, 389(171): 815-822.
8. Wegelin O, Van Melick H H, Hooft L, et al. Comparing three different techniques for magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsies: a systematic review of in-bore versus magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion versus cognitive registration. Is there a preferred technique?. Eur Urol, 2017, 71(4): 517-531.
9. Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, et al. 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(1): 100-109.
10. Van Der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B, et al. 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(4): 570-578.
11. Bratan F, Niaf E, Melodelima C, et al. Influence of imaging and histological factors on prostate cancer detection and localisation on multiparametric MRI: a prospective study. Eur Radiol, 2013, 23(7): 2019-2029.
12. Epstein J I, Egevad L, Muhammad Behrul Amin, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol, 2016, 40(2): 244-252.
13. Muller B G, Shih J H, Sankineni S, et al. Prostate cancer: Interobserver agreement and accuracy with the revised Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System at multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology, 2015, 277(3): 741-750.
14. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz A B, et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1: 2019 update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2. Eur Urol, 2019, 76(3): 340-351.

Journal of Biomedical Engineering

Magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound cognitive fusion targeted biopsy on the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a research of 614 cases in single center

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content