Real life data of MRI-targeted biopsy – experience from a single nonacademic centre using cognitive fusion and 1.5 tesla scanning

References

• Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389:815–822.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1767–1777.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porpiglia F, Manfredi M, Mele F, et al. Diagnostic pathway with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging versus standard pathway: results from a randomized prospective study in biopsy-naive patients with suspected prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2017;72:282–288.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, et al. 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. Eur Urol. 2015;68:438–450.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baco E, Rud E, Eri LM, 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;69:149–156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simmons LAM, Kanthabalan A, Arya M, et al. The PICTURE study: diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI in men requiring a repeat prostate biopsy. Br J Cancer. 2017;116:1159–1165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71:618–629.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA. 2015;313:390–397.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moldovan PC, Van den Broeck T, Sylvester R, et al. 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;72:250–266.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mannaerts CK, Kajtazovic A, Lodeizen OAP, et al. The added value of systematic biopsy in men with suspicion of prostate cancer undergoing multiparametric MRI-targeted biopsy. Urol Oncol. 2019;37:298.e1–298.e9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, et al.; MRI-FIRST Investigators. 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;20:100–109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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;75:570–578.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al.; European Society of Urogenital Radiology. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:746–757.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American College of Radiology. PI-RADS v2; 2015 [cited 2020 May 17]. Available from: http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/PI-RADS2015
   Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al.; Grading Committee. 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;40:244–252.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen NL, Barrett T, Kesch C, et al. Multicentre evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging supported transperineal prostate biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2018;122:40–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahdoot M, Wilbur AR, Reese SE, et al. MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:917–928.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenigsberg AP, Renson A, Rosenkrantz AB, et al. Optimizing the number of cores targeted during prostate magnetic resonance imaging fusion target biopsy. Eur Urol Oncol. 2018;1:418–425.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang M, Milot L, Khalvati F, et al. Value of increasing biopsy cores per target with cognitive MRI-targeted transrectal US prostate biopsy. Radiology. 2019;291:83–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu AJ, Syed JS, Ghabili K, et al. Role of core number and location in targeted magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2019;76:14–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osses DF, van Asten JJ, Tijsterman JD. Cognitive-targeted versus magnetic resonance imaging-guided prostate biopsy in prostate cancer detection. Curr Urol. 2018;11:182–188.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, 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;71:517–531.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Luijtelaar A, Bomers J, Fütterer J. A comparison of magnetic resonance imaging techniques used to secure biopsies in prostate cancer patients. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2019;19:705–716.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar