Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
BioMed Research International
Volume 2017, Article ID 2176471, 8 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2176471
Research Article

Evaluation of MRI/Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Prostate Biopsy Using Transrectal and Transperineal Approaches

1Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg Str. 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany
2Department of Urology and Urologic Oncology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg Str. 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany

Correspondence should be addressed to Susanne Tewes; ed.revonnah-hm@ennasus.sewet

Received 8 May 2017; Revised 12 August 2017; Accepted 20 August 2017; Published 28 September 2017

Academic Editor: Charnita M. Zeigler-Johnson

Copyright © 2017 Susanne Tewes et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. M. de Rooij, E. H. J. Hamoen, J. J. Fütterer, J. O. Barentsz, and M. M. Rovers, “Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis,” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 202, no. 2, pp. 343–351, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. L. Dickinson, H. U. Ahmed, C. Allen et al., “Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting,” European Urology, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 477–494, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. F. Bratan, E. Niaf, C. Melodelima et al., “Influence of imaging and histological factors on prostate cancer detection and localisation on multiparametric MRI: a prospective study,” European Radiology, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 2019–2029, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. T. Franz, J. von Hardenberg, A. Blana et al., “MRI/TRUS fusion-guided prostate biopsy: value in the context of focal therapy,” Der Urologe A, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 208–216, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. C. M. Moore, N. L. Robertson, N. Arsanious et al., “Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review,” European Urology, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 125–140, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. J. P. Radtke, T. H. Kuru, S. Boxler et al., “Comparative Analysis of transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy with magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion guidance,” The Journal of Urology, vol. 193, no. 1, pp. 87–94, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. M. Valerio, I. Donaldson, M. Emberton et al., “Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy: a systematic review,” European Urology, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 8–19, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. I. G. Schoots, M. J. Roobol, D. Nieboer, C. Bangma, E. Steyerberg, and M. Hunink, “Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” European Urology, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 438–450, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  9. M. M. Siddiqui, S. Rais-Bahrami, B. Turkbey et al., “Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer,” The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 313, no. 4, pp. 390–397, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. A. van Hove, P.-H. Savoie, C. Maurin et al., “Comparison of image-guided targeted biopsies versus systematic randomized biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic literature review of well-designed studies,” World Journal of Urology, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 847–858, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. N. Mottet, J. Bellmunt, M. Bolla et al., “EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent,” European Urology, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 618–629, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. Leitlinienprogramm_Onkologie, Interdisziplinäre Leitlinie der Qualität S3 zur Früherkennung, Diagnose und Therapie der verschiedenen Stadien des Prostatakarzinoms, 2014.
  13. L. Marks, S. Young, and S. Natarajan, “MRI-ultrasound fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsy,” Current Opinion in Urology, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 43–50, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. R. Hara, Y. Jo, T. Fujii et al., “Optimal approach for prostate cancer detection as initial biopsy: prospective randomized study comparing transperineal versus transrectal systematic 12-core biopsy,” Urology, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 191–195, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. A. Takenaka, R. Hara, T. Ishimura et al., “A prospective randomized comparison of diagnostic efficacy between transperineal and transrectal 12-core prostate biopsy,” Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 134–138, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. H. Huang, W. Wang, T. Lin et al., “Comparison of the complications of traditional 12 cores transrectal prostate biopsy with image fusion guided transperineal prostate biopsy,” BMC Urology, vol. 16, no. 1, article 68, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. L. Schimmoller, M. Quentin, D. Blondin et al., “Targeted MRI-guided prostate biopsy: are two biopsy cores per MRI-lesion required?” European Radiology, vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 3858–3864, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. J. O. Barentsz, J. Richenberg, R. Clements et al., “ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012,” European Radiology, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 746–757, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. J. C. Weinreb, J. O. Barentsz, P. L. Choyke et al., “PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, version 2,” European Urology, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 16–40, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  20. S. Shoji, S. Hiraiwa, J. Endo et al., “Manually controlled targeted prostate biopsy with real-time fusion imaging of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound: An early experience,” International Journal of Urology, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 173–178, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. S. Tewes, K. Hueper, D. Hartung et al., “Targeted MRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy in men with previous prostate biopsies using a novel registration software and multiparametric MRI PI-RADS scores: first results,” World Journal of Urology, vol. 33, no. 11, pp. 1707–1714, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. A. V. D'Amico, R. Whittington, S. Bruce Malkowicz et al., “Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 280, no. 11, pp. 969–974, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. O. Ukimura, J. A. Coleman, A. de la Taille et al., “Contemporary role of systematic prostate biopsies: indications, techniques, and implications for patient care,” European Urology, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 214–230, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. S. F. Shariat and C. G. Roehrborn, “Using biopsy to detect prostate cancer,” Reviews in Urology, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 262–280, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  25. B. Djavan, V. Ravery, A. Zlotta et al., “Prospective evaluation of prostate cancer detected on biopsies 1, 2, 3 and 4: when should we stop?” The Journal of Urology, vol. 166, no. 5, pp. 1679–1683, 2001. View at Google Scholar
  26. C. G. Roehrborn, G. J. Pickens, and J. S. Sanders, “Diagnostic yield of repeated transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies stratified by specific histopathologic diagnoses and prostate-specific antigen levels,” Urology, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 347–352, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. J. Walz, M. Graefen, F. K.-H. Chun et al., “High incidence of prostate cancer detected by saturation biopsy after previous negative biopsy series,” European Urology, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 498–505, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. J. P. Radtke, C. Schwab, M. B. Wolf et al., “Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy for index tumor detection: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimen,” European Urology, vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 846–853, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. J. D. Le, N. Tan, E. Shkolyar et al., “Multifocality and prostate cancer detection by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: Correlation with whole-mount histopathology,” European Urology, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 569–576, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. N. Tan, D. J. Margolis, D. Y. Lu et al., “Characteristics of detected and missed prostate cancer foci on 3-T multiparametric MRI using an endorectal coil correlated with whole-mount thin-section histopathology,” American Journal of Roentgenology, vol. 205, no. 1, pp. W87–W92, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. E. Baco, E. Rud, L. M. Eri et al., “A randomized controlled trial to assess and compare the outcomes of two-core prostate biopsy guided by fused magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound images and traditional 12-core systematic biopsy,” European Urology, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 149–156, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. O. Akin, C. C. Riedl, N. M. Ishill, C. S. Moskowitz, J. Zhang, and H. Hricak, “Interactive dedicated training curriculum improves accuracy in the interpretation of MR imaging of prostate cancer,” European Radiology, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 995–1002, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. A. P. S. Kirkham, P. Haslam, J. Y. Keanie et al., “Prostate MRI: Who, when, and how? Report from a UK consensus meeting,” Clinical Radiology, vol. 68, no. 10, pp. 1016–1023, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. K. C. Latchamsetty, L. S. Borden Jr., C. R. Porter et al., “Experience improves staging accuracy of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: what is the learning curve?” The Canadian Journal of Urology, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 3429–3434, 2007. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. G. Gaziev, K. Wadhwa, T. Barrett et al., “Defining the learning curve for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate using MRI-transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) fusion-guided transperineal prostate biopsies as a validation tool,” BJU International, vol. 117, no. 1, pp. 80–86, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. D. Steensels, K. Slabbaert, L. De Wever, P. Vermeersch, H. Van Poppel, and J. Verhaegen, “Fluoroquinolone-resistant E. coli in intestinal flora of patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy-should we reassess our practices for antibiotic prophylaxis?” Clinical Microbiology and Infection, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 575–581, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. L.-H. Guo, R. Wu, H.-X. Xu et al., “Comparison between ultrasound guided transperineal and transrectal prostate biopsy: a prospective, randomized, and controlled trial,” Scientific Reports, vol. 5, Article ID 16089, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. J. B. Smith, R. Popert, M. C. Nuttall, L. Vyas, J. Kinsella, and D. Cahill, “Transperineal sector prostate biopsies: A local anesthetic outpatient technique,” Urology, vol. 83, no. 6, pp. 1344–1349, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus