リケラボ論文検索は、全国の大学リポジトリにある学位論文・教授論文を一括検索できる論文検索サービスです。

リケラボ 全国の大学リポジトリにある学位論文・教授論文を一括検索するならリケラボ論文検索大学・研究所にある論文を検索できる

リケラボ 全国の大学リポジトリにある学位論文・教授論文を一括検索するならリケラボ論文検索大学・研究所にある論文を検索できる

大学・研究所にある論文を検索できる 「Optimal Number of Systematic Biopsy Cores Used in Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Prostate Biopsy」の論文概要。リケラボ論文検索は、全国の大学リポジトリにある学位論文・教授論文を一括検索できる論文検索サービスです。
リケラボ

コピーが完了しました

URLをコピーしました

論文の公開元へ論文の公開元へ
書き出し

Optimal Number of Systematic Biopsy Cores Used in Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Prostate Biopsy

Teraoka, Shogo Honda, Masashi Shimizu, Ryutaro Nishikawa, Ryoma Kimura, Yusuke Yumioka, Tetsuya Iwamoto, Hideto Morizane, Shuichi Hikita, Katsuya Takenaka, Atsushi 鳥取大学 DOI:10.33160/yam.2021.08.004

2021.08.24

概要

[Background] In recent years, the effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy (MRF-TB) has been widely reported. In this study, we assessed the effect of reduction of the number of systematic biopsy (SB) cores on the cancer detection rate (CDR). [Methods] Patients with a high prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level underwent prostate MRI. The Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS) was then used to rate the lesions. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) PSA level between 4.0 and 30.0 ng/mL and (2) patients with one or more lesions on MRI and a PI-RADS score of 3 or more. All enrolled patients were SB naïve or had a history of one or more prior negative SBs. A total of 104 Japanese met this selection criterion. We have traditionally performed 14-core SB following the MRF-TB. In this study, the CDRs of 10-core SB methods, excluding biopsy results at the center of the base and mid-level on both sides, were compared with those of the conventional biopsy method. [Results] We compared CDRs of the 14-core and 10-core SBs used in combination. The overall CDR was 55.8% for the former and 55.8% for the latter, thereby indicating that there was no significant difference (P = 1.00) between the two. In addition, the CDRs of csPCa were 51.9% for the former and 51.1% for the latter, which indicated that there was no significant difference (P = 0.317). [Conclusion] There was no significant difference in the CDR when the number of SB cores to be used in combination was 14 and 10.

論文の公開元へ

この論文で使われている画像

関連論文

関連論文をもっと見る

参考文献

1 Mouraviev V, Villers A, Bostwick DG, Wheeler TM,

Montironi R, Polascik TJ. Understanding the pathological

features of focality, grade and tumour volume of early-stage

prostate cancer as a foundation for parenchyma-sparing prostate cancer therapies: active surveillance and focal targeted

therapy. BJU Int. 2011;108:1074-85. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464410X.2010.10039.x, PMID: 21489116

2 Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V,

Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al.; PRECISION Study Group

Collaborators. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for ProstateCancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1767-77. DOI:

10.1056/NEJMoa1801993, PMID: 29552975

266

© 2021 Tottori University Medical Press

Optimal number of SB cores used for MRF-TB for PCa

3 Valerio M, Donaldson I, Emberton M, Ehdaie B, Hadaschik

BA, Marks LS, et al. Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Ultrasound

Fusion Targeted Biopsy: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol.

2015;68:8-19. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.026, PMID:

25454618

4 Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Blondin D, Quentin M, Hiester A,

Godehardt E, et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing

magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided in-bore biopsy

to MRI-ultrasound fusion and transrectal ultrasound-guided

prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur

Urol. 2015;68:713-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.008,

PMID: 26116294

5 Quentin M, Blondin D, Arsov C, Schimmöller L, Hiester

A, Godehardt E, et al. Prospective evaluation of magnetic

resonance imaging guided in-bore prostate biopsy versus

systematic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in

biopsy naïve men with elevated prostate specific antigen.

J Urol. 2014;192:1374-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.05.090,

PMID: 24866597

6 Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Quentin M, Hiester A, Blondin D,

Albers P, et al. Comparison of patient comfort between MRguided in-bore and MRI/ultrasound fusion-guided prostate

biopsies within a prospective randomized trial. World J Urol.

2016;34:215-20. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-015-1612-6, PMID:

26055645

7 Panebianco V, Barchetti G, Simone G, Del Monte M, Ciardi

A, Grompone MD, et al. Negative Multiparametric Magnetic

Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer: what’s Next? Eur

Urol. 2018;74:48-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.03.007,

PMID: 29566957

8 Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George AK,

Rothwax J, Shakir N, et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound

fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the

diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA. 2015;313:390-7. DOI:

10.1001/jama.2014.17942, PMID: 25626035

9 Baco E, Rud E, Eri LM, Moen G, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A,

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. Eur Urol. 2016;69:14956. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.03.041, PMID: 25862143

10 Ukimura O, Marien A, Palmer S, Villers A, Aron M,

de Castro Abreu AL, et al. Trans-rectal ultrasound visibility

of prostate lesions identified by magnetic resonance imaging

increases accuracy of image-fusion targeted biopsies. World

J Urol. 2015;33:1669-76. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-015-1501-z,

PMID: 25656687

11 Ghani KR, Dundas D, Patel U. Bleeding after transrectal

ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy: a study of 7-day

morbidity after a six-, eight- and 12-core biopsy protocol. BJU

Int. 2004;94:1014-20. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2004.05096.x,

PMID: 15541119

12 Chowdhury R, Abbas A, Idriz S, Hoy A, Rutherford EE,

Smart JM. Should warfarin or aspirin be stopped prior to

prostate biopsy? An analysis of bleeding complications

related to increasing sample number regimes. Clin Radiol.

2012;67:e64-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2012.08.005, PMID:

22959852

13 McCormack M, Duclos A, Latour M, McCormack MH,

Liberman D, Djahangirian O, et al. Effect of needle size on

cancer detection, pain, bleeding and infection in TRUSguided prostate biopsies: a prospective trial. Can Urol Assoc J.

2012;6:97-101. DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.11169, PMID: 22511415

14 Berger AP, Gozzi C, Steiner H, Frauscher F, Varkarakis J,

Rogatsch H, et al. Complication rate of transrectal ultrasound

guided prostate biopsy: a comparison among 3 protocols with

6, 10 and 15 cores. J Urol. 2004;171:1478-81. DOI: 10.1097/01.

ju.0000116449.01186.f7, PMID: 15017202

15 Saraçoğlu T, Unsal A, Taşkın F, Sevinçok L, Karaman CZ.

The impact of pre-procedural waiting period and anxiety

level on pain perception in patients undergoing transrectal

ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Diagn Interv Radiol.

2012;18:195-9. PMID: 22042731

16 Alvarez-Múgica M, González Alvarez RC, Jalón Monzón A,

Fernández Gómez JM, Rodríguez Faba O, Rodríguez Robles

L, et al. [Tolerability and complications of ultrasound guided

prostate biopsies with intrarectal lidocaine gel]. Arch Esp

Urol. 2007;60:237-44. PMID: 17601298

17 Dell’atti L, Borea PA, Russo GR. Age: “a natural anesthetic”

in pain perception during the transrectal ultrasound-guided

prostate biopsy procedure. Urol J. 2011;78:257-61. DOI:

10.5301/RU.2011.8850, PMID: 22139799

18 Helfand BT, Glaser AP, Rimar K, Zargaroff S, Hedges J,

McGuire BB, et al. Prostate cancer diagnosis is associated

with an increased risk of erectile dysfunction after prostate

biopsy. BJU Int. 2013;111:38-43. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464410X.2012.11268.x, PMID: 22639942

19 Paul R, Schöler S, van Randenborgh H, Kübler H, Alschibaja

M, Busch R, et al. Morbidity of prostatic biopsy for different

biopsy strategies: is there a relation to core number and

sampling region? Eur Urol. 2004;45:450-6. DOI: 10.1016/

j.eururo.2003.12.007, PMID: 15041108

20 Irani J, Blanchet P, Salomon L, Coloby P, Hubert J, Malavaud

B, et al. Is an extended 20-core prostate biopsy protocol more

efficient than the standard 12-core? A randomized multicenter

trial. J Urol. 2013;190:77-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.12.109,

PMID: 23313205

21 Venderink W, Govers TM, de Rooij M, Fütterer JJ, Sedelaar

JPM. Cost-Effectiveness Comparison of Imaging-Guided

Prostate Biopsy Techniques: Systematic Transrectal Ultrasound, Direct In-Bore MRI, and Image Fusion. AJR Am J

Roentgenol. 2017;208:1058-63. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.16.17322,

PMID: 28225639

22 Onik G, Miessau M, Bostwick DG. Three-dimensional

prostate mapping biopsy has a potentially significant impact

on prostate cancer management. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:43216. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.20.3497, PMID: 19652073

23 Washino S, Kobayashi S, Okochi T, Kameda T, Konoshi

T, Miyagawa T, et al. Cancer detection rate of prebiopsy

MRI with subsequent systematic and targeted biopsy are

superior to non-targeting systematic biopsy without MRI

in biopsy naïve patients: a retrospective cohort study. BMC

Urol. 2018;18:51. DOI: 10.1186/s12894-018-0361-4, PMID:

29843694

24 Filson CP, Natarajan S, Margolis DJA, Huang J, Lieu P, Dorey

FJ, et al. Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonanceultrasound fusion biopsy: the role of systematic and targeted

biopsies. Cancer. 2016;122:884-92. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.29874,

PMID: 26749141

267

© 2021 Tottori University Medical Press

S. Teraoka et al.

25 Mortezavi A, Märzendorfer O, Donati OF, Rizzi G, Rupp NJ,

Wettstein MS, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Multiparametric

Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Fusion Guided Targeted

Biopsy Evaluated by Transperineal Template Saturation

Prostate Biopsy for the Detection and Characterization of

Prostate Cancer. J Urol. 2018;200:309-18. DOI: 10.1016/

j.juro.2018.02.067, PMID: 29474846

26 Truong M, Feng C, Hollenberg G, Weinberg E, Messing EM,

Miyamoto H, et al. A Comprehensive Analysis of Cribriform

Morphology on Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound

Fusion Biopsy Correlated with Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. J Urol. 2018;199:106-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.07.037,

PMID: 28728994

27 Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo GD, Galia A, Fraggetta F, Pennisi

M. Is it Time to Perform Only Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Targeted Cores? Our Experience with 1,032 Men Who

Underwent Prostate Biopsy. J Urol. 2018;200:774-8. DOI:

10.1016/j.juro.2018.04.061, PMID: 29679618

28 Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang R, Deng FM, Wysock

JS, Bjurlin MA, et al. The Institutional Learning Curve of

Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Targeted

Prostate Biopsy: Temporal Improvements in Cancer Detection in 4 Years. J Urol. 2018;200:1022-9. DOI: 10.1016/

j.juro.2018.06.012, PMID: 29886090

29 Porpiglia F, De Luca S, Passera R, De Pascale A, Amparore

D, Cattaneo G, et al. Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance/

Ultrasound Fusion Prostate Biopsy: Number and Spatial

Distribution of Cores for Better Index Tumor Detection

and Characterization. J Urol. 2017;198:58-64. DOI: 10.1016/

j.juro.2017.01.036, PMID: 28093292

30 Dimitroulis P, Rabenalt R, Nini A, Hiester A, Esposito I,

Schimmöller L, et al. Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance

Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion Prostate Biopsy—Are 2 Biopsy

Cores per Magnetic Resonance Imaging Lesion Required?

J Urol. 2018;200:1030-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.05.002,

PMID: 29733837

31 Rosenkrantz AB, Ayoola A, Hoffman D, Khasgiwala A,

Prabhu V, Smereka P, et al. The Learning Curve in Prostate

MRI Interpretation: Self-Directed Learning Versus Continual

Reader Feedback. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208:W92-100.

DOI: 10.2214/AJR.16.16876, PMID: 28026201

32 Rosenkrantz AB, Lim RP, Haghighi M, Somberg MB, Babb

JS, Taneja SS. Comparison of interreader reproducibility of

the prostate imaging reporting and data system and likert

scales for evaluation of multiparametric prostate MRI.

AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201:W612-8. DOI: 10.2214/

AJR.12.10173, PMID: 24059400

268

© 2021 Tottori University Medical Press

...

参考文献をもっと見る