Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and combined prostate biopsy: opportunities, advantages and pitfalls
https://doi.org/10.24835/1607-0763-1023
Abstract
Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) has superb sensitivity in prostate cancer detection. mpMRI is increasingly used not only for primary diagnostics, but for location of suspicious lesion before biopsy in case of targeted biopsy (TB). In many recent studies have been shown higher level of TB accuracy in prostate cancer detection in comparison with traditional systemic biopsy. In recent EAU, NICE, ACR recommendations mpMRI is indicated for men with high level of prostate cancer suspicion with previous negative results of systemic biopsy. However, it is not absolutely clear, whether mpMRI is indicated for biopsy-naïve men. This study is dedicated for prostate biopsy planning in the groups of biopsy-naïve men and with the history of previous biopsy.
About the Authors
G. A. Gulin
“European medical center UGMK-Health” Ltd.; Sverdlovsk Region Onсology Center
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Georgy A. Gulin, Head of Radiology Department «UGMK-Healt» Ltd.
113, Sheinkman str., Ekaternburg, 620144
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The study had no sponsorship.
A. V. Zyryanov
Sverdlvsk Region Clinical Hospital № 1
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Alexander V. Zyryanov, Doct. of Sci. (Med.), Professor, Doctor of Medical Sciences, Professor at the Department of Urology of Ural State Medical University
Ekaternburg
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The study had no sponsorship.
N. A. Rubtsova
P. A. Hertzen Moscow Oncology Research Institute – branch of the National Medical Research Center of Radiology, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Natalia A. Rubtsova, Doct. of Sci. (Med.), Doctor of Medical Sciences, Head of Radiology Department
3, 2nd Botkinskiy Proezd, Moscow, 125284
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The study had no sponsorship.
V. M. Artyemov
“European medical center UGMK-Health” Ltd.
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Viktor M. Artyemov, urologist of Urology Department
113, Sheinkman str., Ekaternburg, 620144
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The study had no sponsorship.
A. V. Zamyatin
Sverdlovsk Region Onсology Center
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Aleksander V. Zamyatin, urologist of Oncourology Department
29, Soboleva str., Ekaternburg, 620036
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The study had no sponsorship.
E. A. Grebenev
Sverdlovsk Region Hospital “Verhnepyshminsky P. D. Borodin Hospital”
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Еvgeny А. Grebenev, Cand. of Sci. (Med.), Head of Radiology Department
32, Chajkovskogo str, Verhnjaja Pyshma, 624090
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The study had no sponsorship.
References
1. Russia Federation Ministries of Healthcare Clinical Guidelines in Diagnostics and Management of prostate cancer http://www.oncology.ru/association/clinical-guidelines/2018/rak_predstatelnoy_zhelezy_pr2018.pdf (In Russian)
2. Clinical Prostate Cancer Guidelines ROU, RUSSCO, ROOU, AOR 2020. https://oncology-association.ru/files/clinical-guidelines-2020/rak_predstatelnoj_zhelezy.pdf (In Russian)
3. European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines 2020. https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/ (In Russian)
4. Mehralivand S., Bednarova S., Shih J.H. et al. Prospective Evaluation of PI-RADS Version 2 Using the International Society of Urological Pathology Prostate Cancer Grade Group System. J. Urol. 2017; 198 (3): 583–590.
5. Ahmed H.U., El-Shater Bosaily A., Brown L.C., Gabe R., Kaplan R., Parmar M.K., Collaco-Moraes Y., Ward K., Hindley R.G., Freeman A., Kirkham A.P., Oldroyd R., Parker C., Emberton M.; PROMIS study group. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017; 389 (10071): 815–822. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
6. Drost F.H., Osses D., Nieboer D., Bangma C.H., Steyerberg E.W., Roobol M.J., Schoots I.G. Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging, with or Without Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy, and Systematic Biopsy for Detecting Prostate Cancer: A Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur. Urol. 2020; 77 (1): 78–94. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.06.023
7. Padhani A.R., Barentsz J., Villeirs G., Rosenkrantz A.B., Margolis D.J., Turkbey B., Thoeny H.C., Cornud F., Haider M.A., Macura K.J., Tempany C.M., Verma S., Weinreb J.C. PI-RADS Steering Committee: The PI-RADS Multiparametric MRI and MRI-directed Biopsy Pathway. Radiology. 2019; 292 (2): 464–474. http://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019182946
8. Stanford J.L., Stephenson R.A., Coyle L.M., Cerhan J., Correa R., Eley J.W., Gilliland F., Hankey B., Kolonel L.N., Kosary C., Ross R., Severson R., West D. Prostate Cancer Trends 1973-1995, SEER Program, National Cancer Institute. NIH Pub. No. 99–4543. Bethesda, MD, 1999.
9. Yadav S.S., Stockert J.A., Hackert V. et al. Intratumor heterogeneity in prostate cancer // Urol. Oncol.: Semin. Original Invest. 2018; 36 (8): 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.05.008
10. Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS) 2019 v2.1 (full text document) https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/PIRADS
11. Matoso A., Epstein J. Defining clinically significant prostate cancer on the basis of pathological findings Histopatology. Histopathology. 2018; 74: 135–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.13712
12. Huang G.L., Kang C.H., Lee W.C., Chiang P.H. Comparisons of cancer detection rate and complications between transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy approaches – a single center preliminary study. BMC Urol. 2019; 19 (1): 101. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-019-0539-4
13. Rouviere O., Puech P., Renard-Penna R., Claudon M., Roy C., Mège-Lechevallier F., Decaussin-Petrucci M., Dubreuil-Chambardel M., Magaud L., Remontet L., Ruffion A., Colombel M., Crouzet S., Schott A.M., Lemaitre L., Rabilloud M., Grenier N.; MRI-FIRST Investigators. Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRIFIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol. 2019; 20 (1): 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2
14. Panebianco V., Barchetti G., Simone G., Del Monte M., Ciardi A., Grompone M.D., Campa R., Indino E.L., Barchetti F., Sciarra A., Leonardo C., Gallucci M., Catalano C. Negative Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer: What's Next? Eur. Urol. 2018; 74 (1): 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.03.007
15. Moldovan P.C., Van den Broeck T., Sylvester R., Marconi L., Bellmunt J., van den Bergh R.C.N., Bolla M., Briers E., Cumberbatch M.G., Fossati N., Gross T., Henry A.M., Joniau S., van der Kwast T.H., Matveev V.B., van der Poel H.G., De Santis M., Schoots I.G., Wiegel T., Yuan C.Y., Cornford P., Mottet N., Lam T.B., Rouvière O. What Is the Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Excluding Prostate Cancer at Biopsy? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. Eur. Urol. 2017; 72 (2): 250–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.02.026
16. Kasivisvanathan V., Rannikko A.S., Borghi M. et al. MRITargeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018; 378 (19): 1767–1777. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
Supplementary files
Review
For citations:
Gulin G.A., Zyryanov A.V., Rubtsova N.A., Artyemov V.M., Zamyatin A.V., Grebenev E.A. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and combined prostate biopsy: opportunities, advantages and pitfalls. Medical Visualization. 2021;25(2):138-152. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24835/1607-0763-1023
Views:
1029
Email this article 