Preoperative prostate biopsy and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: reliability in detecting prostate cancer

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Porpiglia,Francesco
Data de Publicação: 2015
Outros Autores: Russo,Filippo, Manfredi,Matteo, Mele,Fabrizio, Fiori,Cristian, Regge,Daniele
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: International Braz J Urol (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382015000100124
Resumo: Purpose The aim of the study was to analyse and compare the ability of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp–MRI) and prostate biopsy (PB) to correctly identify tumor foci in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCa). Materials and Methods 157 patients with clinically localised PCa with a PSA <10 ng/mL and a negative DRE diagnosed on the first (12 samples, Group A) or second (18 samples, Group B) PB were enrolled at our institution. All patients underwent mp-MRI with T2-weighted images, diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast enhanced-MRI prior to RP. A map of comparison describing each positive biopsy sample was created for each patient, with each tumor focus shown on the MRI and each lesion present on the definitive histological examination in order to compare tumor detection and location. The sensitivity of mp-MRI and PB for diagnosis was compared using Student’s t-test. The ability of the two exams to detect the prevalence of Gleason pattern 4 in the identified lesions was compared using a chi-square test. Results Overall sensitivity of PB and mp-MRI to identify tumor lesion was 59.4% and 78.9%, respectively (p<0.0001). PB missed 144/355 lesions, 59 of which (16.6%) were significant. mp-MRI missed 75/355 lesions, 12 of which (3.4%) were significant. No lesions with a GS≥8 were missed. Sensitivity of PB and mp-MRI to detect the prevalence of Gleason pattern 4 was 88.2% and 97.4%, respectively. Conclusions mp-MRI seems to identify more tumor lesions than PB and to provide more information concerning tumor characteristics.
id SBU-1_38f62d583e7f4e2689291461629b9d15
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1677-55382015000100124
network_acronym_str SBU-1
network_name_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Preoperative prostate biopsy and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: reliability in detecting prostate cancerProstatic NeoplasmsProstateMagnetic Resonance ImagingProstatectomyBiopsy Purpose The aim of the study was to analyse and compare the ability of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp–MRI) and prostate biopsy (PB) to correctly identify tumor foci in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCa). Materials and Methods 157 patients with clinically localised PCa with a PSA <10 ng/mL and a negative DRE diagnosed on the first (12 samples, Group A) or second (18 samples, Group B) PB were enrolled at our institution. All patients underwent mp-MRI with T2-weighted images, diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast enhanced-MRI prior to RP. A map of comparison describing each positive biopsy sample was created for each patient, with each tumor focus shown on the MRI and each lesion present on the definitive histological examination in order to compare tumor detection and location. The sensitivity of mp-MRI and PB for diagnosis was compared using Student’s t-test. The ability of the two exams to detect the prevalence of Gleason pattern 4 in the identified lesions was compared using a chi-square test. Results Overall sensitivity of PB and mp-MRI to identify tumor lesion was 59.4% and 78.9%, respectively (p<0.0001). PB missed 144/355 lesions, 59 of which (16.6%) were significant. mp-MRI missed 75/355 lesions, 12 of which (3.4%) were significant. No lesions with a GS≥8 were missed. Sensitivity of PB and mp-MRI to detect the prevalence of Gleason pattern 4 was 88.2% and 97.4%, respectively. Conclusions mp-MRI seems to identify more tumor lesions than PB and to provide more information concerning tumor characteristics. Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia2015-02-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382015000100124International braz j urol v.41 n.1 2015reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)instacron:SBU10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2015.01.17info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessPorpiglia,FrancescoRusso,FilippoManfredi,MatteoMele,FabrizioFiori,CristianRegge,Danieleeng2015-04-07T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1677-55382015000100124Revistahttp://www.brazjurol.com.br/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br1677-61191677-5538opendoar:2015-04-07T00:00International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Preoperative prostate biopsy and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: reliability in detecting prostate cancer
title Preoperative prostate biopsy and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: reliability in detecting prostate cancer
spellingShingle Preoperative prostate biopsy and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: reliability in detecting prostate cancer
Porpiglia,Francesco
Prostatic Neoplasms
Prostate
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Prostatectomy
Biopsy
title_short Preoperative prostate biopsy and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: reliability in detecting prostate cancer
title_full Preoperative prostate biopsy and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: reliability in detecting prostate cancer
title_fullStr Preoperative prostate biopsy and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: reliability in detecting prostate cancer
title_full_unstemmed Preoperative prostate biopsy and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: reliability in detecting prostate cancer
title_sort Preoperative prostate biopsy and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: reliability in detecting prostate cancer
author Porpiglia,Francesco
author_facet Porpiglia,Francesco
Russo,Filippo
Manfredi,Matteo
Mele,Fabrizio
Fiori,Cristian
Regge,Daniele
author_role author
author2 Russo,Filippo
Manfredi,Matteo
Mele,Fabrizio
Fiori,Cristian
Regge,Daniele
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Porpiglia,Francesco
Russo,Filippo
Manfredi,Matteo
Mele,Fabrizio
Fiori,Cristian
Regge,Daniele
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Prostatic Neoplasms
Prostate
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Prostatectomy
Biopsy
topic Prostatic Neoplasms
Prostate
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Prostatectomy
Biopsy
description Purpose The aim of the study was to analyse and compare the ability of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp–MRI) and prostate biopsy (PB) to correctly identify tumor foci in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCa). Materials and Methods 157 patients with clinically localised PCa with a PSA <10 ng/mL and a negative DRE diagnosed on the first (12 samples, Group A) or second (18 samples, Group B) PB were enrolled at our institution. All patients underwent mp-MRI with T2-weighted images, diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast enhanced-MRI prior to RP. A map of comparison describing each positive biopsy sample was created for each patient, with each tumor focus shown on the MRI and each lesion present on the definitive histological examination in order to compare tumor detection and location. The sensitivity of mp-MRI and PB for diagnosis was compared using Student’s t-test. The ability of the two exams to detect the prevalence of Gleason pattern 4 in the identified lesions was compared using a chi-square test. Results Overall sensitivity of PB and mp-MRI to identify tumor lesion was 59.4% and 78.9%, respectively (p<0.0001). PB missed 144/355 lesions, 59 of which (16.6%) were significant. mp-MRI missed 75/355 lesions, 12 of which (3.4%) were significant. No lesions with a GS≥8 were missed. Sensitivity of PB and mp-MRI to detect the prevalence of Gleason pattern 4 was 88.2% and 97.4%, respectively. Conclusions mp-MRI seems to identify more tumor lesions than PB and to provide more information concerning tumor characteristics.
publishDate 2015
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2015-02-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382015000100124
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382015000100124
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2015.01.17
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv International braz j urol v.41 n.1 2015
reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron:SBU
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron_str SBU
institution SBU
reponame_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
collection International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br
_version_ 1750318074077118464