scholarly journals Impact of Chronic Prostatitis on the PI-RADS Score 3: Proposal for the Addition of a Novel Binary Suffix

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 623
Author(s):  
Sascha Merat ◽  
Theresa Blümlein ◽  
Markus Klarhöfer ◽  
Dominik Nickel ◽  
Gad Singer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Prostatitis ◽  
Histopathological Analysis ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Fusion Biopsy ◽  
Prostate Imaging ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Radiological Report ◽  
Apparent Diffusion ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
The Impact

We examined the impact of chronic prostatitis on the diagnostic performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). In this retrospective study, 63 men underwent 3T mpMRI followed by MRI/ultrasound fusion biopsy to exclude/confirm clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). A total of 93 lesions were included for evaluation. Images were assessed by two radiologists. Prostatitis was graded visually on T2-weighted and contrast-enhanced sequences. The correlation of prostatitis features with the assigned Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and the presence of csPCa were assessed, and the clinical and functional imaging parameters for differentiating between prostatitis and significant tumors were examined. Histopathological analysis was used as the reference standard. The rate of PI-RADS 3 scores tended to be higher in the presence of radiologically severe prostatitis compared with no/discrete prostatitis (n = 52 vs. n = 9; p = 0.225). In severe prostatitis, csPCa was determined in only 7.7% (4/52) of PI-RADS 3 lesions. In severe chronic prostatitis, a binary prostatitis suffix (e.g., PI-RADS 3 i+ versus i−) within the radiological report may help assess the limitations of mpMRI interpretability because of severe prostatitis and avoid unnecessary biopsies. Mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADCmean) was the best marker (cutoff 0.93 × 10−3 mm2/s) to differentiate between csPCa/non csPCa in severe prostatitis.

Naive patients with suspicious prostate cancer and positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI): is it time for fusion target biopsy alone?

2021 ◽  
pp. 205141582110237
Author(s):  
Enrico Checcucci ◽  
Sabrina De Cillis ◽  
Daniele Amparore ◽  
Diletta Garrou ◽  
Roberta Aimar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Fusion Biopsy ◽  
Grade Group ◽  
Final Pathology ◽  
Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Clinically Significant

Objectives: To determine if standard biopsy still has a role in the detection of prostate cancer or clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive patients with positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Materials and methods: We extracted, from our prospective maintained fusion biopsy database, patients from March 2014 to December 2018. The detection rate of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer and complication rate were analysed in a cohort of patients who underwent fusion biopsy alone (group A) or fusion biopsy plus standard biopsy (group B). The International Society of Urological Pathology grade group determined on prostate biopsy with the grade group determined on final pathology among patients who underwent radical prostatectomy were compared. Results: Prostate cancer was found in 249/389 (64.01%) and 215/337 (63.8%) patients in groups A and B, respectively ( P=0.98), while the clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate was 57.8% and 55.1% ( P=0.52). No significant differences in complications were found. No differences in the upgrading rate between biopsy and final pathology finding after radical prostatectomy were recorded. Conclusions: In biopsy-naive patients, with suspected prostate cancer and positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging the addition of standard biopsy to fusion biopsy did not increase significantly the detection rate of prostate cancer or clinically significant prostate cancer. Moreover, the rate of upgrading of the cancer grade group between biopsy and final pathology was not affected by the addition of standard biopsy. Level of evidence: Not applicable for this multicentre audit.

scholarly journals Comparing Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Version 2 (PI-RADSv2) Category 1 and 2 Groups: Clinical Implication of Negative Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Jung Kwon Kim ◽  
Hak Jong Lee ◽  
Sung Il Hwang ◽  
Gheeyoung Choe ◽  
Sung Kyu Hong
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Data System ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Fusion Biopsy ◽  
Prostate Imaging ◽  
Gleason Pattern ◽  
Clinical Databases

Objectives. To evaluate the clinicopathological differences between Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 (v2) category 1 and 2 groups. Materials and Methods. We retrospectively reviewed our two institutional clinical databases: (1) transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) fusion biopsy cohort (n=706) and (2) radical prostatectomy (RP) cohort (n=1403). Subsequently, we performed comparative analyses between PI-RADSv2 category 1 and 2 groups. Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined as the presence of Gleason score GS≥3+4 in a single biopsy core, and adverse pathology (AP) was defined as high-grade (primary Gleason pattern 4 or any pattern 5) and/or non-organ-confined disease (pT3/N1). We also performed multivariate logistic regression analyses for AP. Results. In the TRUS/MRI fusion biopsy cohort, no significant differences in detection rates of all cancer (18.2% vs. 29.0%, respectively, P=0.730) or csPCa (9.1% vs. 9.9%, respectively, P=0.692) were observed between PI-RADSv2 category 1 and 2 groups. There were no significant differences in pathologic outcomes including Gleason score (≥4+3, 21.2% vs. 29.9%, respectively, P=0.420) or detection rate of AP (27.3% vs. 33.8%, respectively, P=0.561) between the two groups in the RP cohort either. PI-RADSv2 category 1 or 2 had no significant association with AP, even in univariate analysis (P=0.299). Conclusions. PI-RADSv2 categories 1 and 2 had similar performance to predict clinicopathological outcomes. Consequently, these two categories may be unified into a single category. Negative mpMRI does not guarantee the absence of AP, as with csPCa.

scholarly journals Assessment of the Minimal Targeted Biopsy Core Number per MRI Lesion for Improving Prostate Cancer Grading Prediction

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guillaume Ploussard ◽  
Jean-Baptiste Beauval ◽  
Raphaële Renard-Penna ◽  
Marine Lesourd ◽  
Cécile Manceau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lesion Size ◽  
Targeted Biopsy ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Grade Group ◽  
Final Grade ◽  
Prostate Imaging ◽  
Biopsy Core ◽  
Mri Characteristics ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Cancer Grading

Background: To study the impact of MRI characteristics and of targeted biopsy (TB) core number on the final grade group (GG) prediction. Materials and Methods: The cohort was 478 consecutive patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) after positive mpMRI (multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging) followed by fusion TB. Endpoints were the upgrading and concordance rates between TB and RP specimens. Results: Upgrading rate after TB was 40.6%. Patients with upgrading had lower PIRADS (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System) scores (p < 0.001), smaller lesion size (p = 0.017), fewer TB cores (p < 0.001), and lower TB density (p = 0.015) compared with cases with grade concordance. There was a significant continuous improvement in upgrading rate when TB core number per lesion increased from 56.3% to 25.6% when <2 or ≥5 TB cores were taken, respectively (p = 0.002). The minimal TB number per lesion to reduce upgrading risk to approximately 30%was 4 in PIRADS 3, and 3 in PIRADS 4–5 cases. Conclusions: Grade group prediction by TB is significantly improved by higher PIRADS score, larger lesion size, and increased TB per lesion. At least four TB cores should be taken in PIRADS 3 score lesions, whereas three cores seem enough in PIRADS 4–5 cases to improve GG prediction and limit upgrading risk.

scholarly journals MRI/US fusion prostate biopsy in men on active surveillance: Our experience

2021 ◽  
Vol 93 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-91
Author(s):  
Vito Lacetera ◽  
Angelo Antezza ◽  
Alessio Papaveri ◽  
Emanuele Cappa ◽  
Bernardino Cervelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Cancer Detection ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Cancer Detection Rate ◽  
Fusion Biopsy ◽  
Prostate Imaging ◽  
Diagnostic Role ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Target Biopsy

Aim: The upgrading or staging in men with prostate cancer (PCA) undergoing active surveillance (AS), defined as Gleason score (GS) ≥ 3+4 or more than 2 area with cancer, was investigated in our experience using the software-based fusion biopsy (FB). Methods: We selected from our database, composed of 620 biopsies, only men on AS according to criteria of John Hopkins Protocol (T1c, < 3 positive cores, GS = 3+3 = 6). Monitoring consisted of PSA measurement every 3 months, a clinical examination every 6 months, confirmatory FB within 6 months and then annual FB in all men. The suspicious MRI lesions were scored according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) classification version 2. FB were performed with a transrectal elastic free-hand fusion platform. The overall and clinically significant cancer detection rate was reported. Secondary, the diagnostic role of systematic biopsies was evaluated. Results: We selected 56 patients on AS with mean age 67.4 years, mean PSA 6.7 ng/ml and at least one follow-up MRI-US fusion biopsy (10 had 2 or 3 follow-up biopsies). Lesions detected by MRI were: PIRADS-2 in 5, PIRADS-3 in 28, PIRADS-4 in 18 pts and PIRADS-5 in 5 patients. In each MRI lesion, FB with 2.1 ± 1.1 cores were taken with a mean total cores of 13 ± 2.4 including the systematic cores. The overall cancer detection rate was 71% (40/56): 62% (25/40) in target core and 28% (15/40) in systematic core. The overall significant cancer detection rate was 46% (26/56): 69% (18/26) in target vs 31% (8/26) in random cores. Conclusions: The incidence of clinical significant cancer was 46% in men starting active surveillance, but it was more than doubled using MRI/US Target Biopsy 69% (18/26) rather than random cores (31%, 8/26). However, 1/3 of disease upgrades would have been missed if only the targeted biopsies were performed. Based on our experience, MRI/US fusion target biopsy must be associated to systematic biopsies to improve detection of significant cancer, reducing the risks of misclassification.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document