Effectiveness of cognitive fusion transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy when compared with final prostatectomy histology

Submitted: October 2, 2024
Accepted: October 6, 2024
Published: December 18, 2024
Abstract Views: 4
PDF: 1
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

Introduction and objectives: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in men. Cognitive fusion transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy is one of several modalities for diagnosing this disease. However, no existing studies have shown the clear superiority of one image-guided technique over another. This investigation aimed to evaluate the efficacy of targeted biopsy through cognitive guidance, as well as to assess the accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in the detection of PCa compared to the specimen obtained by radical prostatectomy (RP).

Materials and methods: We conducted a retrospective observational single-center study approved by the ethical committee, including men with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels between 2-10 mg/ml who underwent RP and cognitive fusion biopsy (CFB) between 2017 January and 2022 January.

Results: A total of 639 patients were analyzed, 83 of whom met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled in this study. The overall rate of PCa detection with CFB was 79.5% (median of specific PCa detection was 100%), and the rate of detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was 74.7%. In addition, there was 42.2% agreement between the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) score of the CFB and the RP specimen, which increased to 56.6% when the systematic biopsy was added. Regarding the accuracy of mpMRI, several parameters were evaluated with respect to RP sample histology. Of these, tumor location had a total match rate of 39.8% and a partial match rate of 55.4%. Moreover, regarding extraprostatic extension (EPE), the present study found a significant association between the RP specimen and mpMRI (p = 0.002), with an agreement rate of 60% if it was present in the histology and 79.5% if it was not. Additionally, larger prostates and tumors located in the transition zone were significantly associated with a lower CFB accuracy (p = 0.001 and p = 0.030, respectively). After adjusting for all variables evaluated, only prostate volume remains statistically significant (p = 0.029).

Conclusions: In this study, we conclude that mpMRI is highly accurate, allowing good characterization of suspicious tumors and reasonably guiding cognitive biopsy. However, the use of both targeted biopsy through cognitive guidance and systematic biopsy increases the diagnostic accuracy for PCa. Although there is no recommendation in the current literature for one guiding technique over another, we believe that cognitive-guided biopsy should only be reserved for centers with no access to ultrasound or magnetic resonance fusion software.

Dimensions

Altmetric

PlumX Metrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations

Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018; 68:394-424.
Rawla, P. Epidemiology of Prostate Cancer. World J Oncol. 2019; 10:63-89.
Haas G, Delongchamps N, Brawley O, et al. The worldwide epidemiology of prostate cancer: perspectives from autopsy studies. Can J Urol. 2008; 15:3866-71.
McNeal J, Redwine E, Freiha F, Stamey T. Zonal distribution of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Correlation with histologic pattern and direction of spread. Am J Surg Pathol. 1988; 12:897-906.
Grignon J, Sakr W. Zonal origin of prostatic adenocarcinoma: are there biologic differences between transition zone and peripheral zone adenocarcinomas of the prostate gland? J Cell Biochem Suppl. 1994; 19:267-9.
Mazhar D, Waxman J. Prostate cancer. Postgrad Med J. 2002; 78:590-5.
Puech P, Ouzzane A, Gaillard V, et al. Multiparametric MRI-targeted TRUS prostate biopsies using visual registration. Biomed Res Int. 2014; 2014:819360.
Immerzeel J, Israel B, Bomers J, et al. Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: What Urologists Need to Know. Part 4: Transperineal Magnetic Resonance-Ultrasound Fusion Guided Biopsy Using Local Anesthesia. Eur Urol. 2022; 81:110-117.
Venderink W, Bomers J, Overduin C, et al. Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: What Urologists Need to Know. Part 3: Targeted Biopsy. Eur Urol. 2020; 77:481-490.
Pang C, Wang M, Hou H, et al. Cognitive magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion transperineal targeted biopsy combined with randomized biopsy in detection of prostate cancer. World J Clin Cases. 2021; 9:11183-11192.
Sugano D, Kaneko M, Yip W, et al. Comparative Effectiveness of Techniques in Targeted Prostate Biopsy. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13:1449.
EAU Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam 2022. ISBN 978-94-92671-16-5.
Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed H, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013; 64:876-92.
Streicher J, Meyerson B, Karivedu V, Sidana A. A review of optimal prostate biopsy: indications and techniques. Ther Adv Urol. 2019;11:1756287219870074.
Pina J, Dias J, Meirinha A, et al. Biópsia prostática dirigida por fusão cognitiva após ressonância magnética multiparamétrica. Comparação com a técnica habitual de biópsia aleatória. Acta Urológica Portuguesa. 2015; 32:101-107.
Rodrigues S, Dores M, Metrogos V, et al. Biópsia prostática orientada por fusão de imagem RMN-ETR: breve revisão a propósito de caso clínico. Acta Urológica Portuguesa. 2014; 31:88-91.
Hsieh P, Chang T, Lin W, et al. A comparative study of transperineal software-assisted magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion biopsy
and transrectal cognitive fusion biopsy of the prostate. BMC Urol. 2022; 22:72.
Ahmed H, Bosaily A, Brown L, et al. PROMIS study group. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017; 389:815-822.
McHugh J, Saunders E, Dadaev T, et al. Prostate cancer risk in men of differing genetic ancestry and approaches to disease screening and management in these groups. Br J Cancer. 2022; 126:1366-1373.
Baco E, Ukimura O, Rud E, et al. Magnetic resonance imagingtransectal ultrasound image-fusion biopsies accurately characterize the index tumor: correlation with step-sectioned radical prostatectomy specimens in 135 patients. Eur Urol. 2015; 67:787-94.
Turkbey B, Mani H, Shah V, et al. Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. J Urol. 2011; 186:1818-24.
Israël B, Leest MV, Sedelaar M, et al. Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: What Urologists Need to Know. Part 2: Interpretation. Eur Urol. 2020; 77:469-480.
Engels RRM, Israël B, Padhani AR, Barentsz JO. Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: What Urologists Need to Know. Part 1: Acquisition. Eur Urol. 2020; 77:457-468.
Ploussard G, de la Taille A. Prostate biopsies: let's move forward. Eur Urol. 2013; 64:893-4.
Wegelin O, Exterkate L, van der Leest M, et al. The FUTURE Trial: A Multicenter Randomised Controlled Trial on Target Biopsy Techniques Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in Patients with Prior Negative Biopsies. Eur Urol. 2019; 75:582-590.
Moore CM, Robertson NL, Arsanious N, et al. Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2013; 63:125-40.
Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong H, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013; 64:713-719.
Bjurlin MA, Meng X, Le Nobin J, et al. Optimization of prostate biopsy: the role of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in detection, localization and risk assessment. J Urol. 2014; 192:648-58.
Dekalo S, Matzkin H, Mabjeesh NJ. High cancer detection rate using cognitive fusion - targeted transperineal prostate biopsies. Int Braz J Urol. 2017; 43:600-606.
Wang L, Wang X, Zhao W, et al. Surface-projection-based transperineal cognitive fusion targeted biopsy of the prostate: an original technique with a good cancer detection rate. BMC Urology. 2019; 19:107.
Kuliš T, Zekulic T, Alduk AM, et al. Targeted prostate biopsy using a cognitive fusion of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound in patients with previously negative systematic biopsies and non-suspicious digital rectal exam. Croat Med J. 2020; 61:49-54.
Yamada Y, Ukimura O, Kaneko M, et al. Moving away from systematic biopsies: image-guided prostate biopsy (in-bore biopsy, cognitive fusion biopsy, MRUS fusion biopsy) -literature review. World J Urol. 2021; 39:677-686.
Ryan J, Broe MP, Moran D, et al. Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ cognitive fusion biopsy: Comparing standard and targeted prostate biopsy with final prostatectomy histology. Can Urol Assoc J. 2021; 15:E483-e487.
Watts KL, Frechette L, Muller B, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing cognitive vs. image-guided fusion prostate biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations. 2020; 38:734.e19-734.e25.
Lim LY, Tan GH, Zainuddin ZM, et al. Prospective evaluation of using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in cognitive fusion
prostate biopsy compared to the standard systematic 12-core biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer. Urol Ann. 2020; 12:276-282.
Majchrzak N, Cieslinski P, Milecki T, et al. Analysis of the usefulness of magnetic resonance imaging and clinical parameters in the detection of prostate cancer in the first systematic biopsy combined with targeted cognitive biopsy. Cent European J Urol. 2021; 74:321-326.
Oberlin DT, Casalino DD, Miller FH, et al. Diagnostic Value of Guided Biopsies: Fusion and Cognitive-registration Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Conventional Ultrasound Biopsy of the Prostate. Urology. 2016; 92:75-9.
Pepe P, Pepe L, Panella P, Pennisi M. Can multiparametric ultrasound improve cognitive MRI/TRUS fusion prostate biopsy. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2020; 92.89-92
Diamand R, Oderda M, Al Hajj Obeid W, et al. A multicentric study on accurate grading of prostate cancer with systematic and MRI/US fusion targeted biopsies: comparison with final histopathology after radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2019; 37:2109-2117.
Ploussard G, Borgmann H, Briganti A, et al.; EAU-YAU Prostate Cancer Working Group. Positive pre-biopsy MRI: are systematic biopsies still useful in addition to targeted biopsies? World J Urol. 2019; 37:243-251.
Martins M, Regusci S, Rohner S, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI for detection and localization of prostate cancer depends on the affected region. BJUI Compass. 2021; 2:178-187.
de Rooij M, Hamoen EH, Witjes JA, et al. Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Local Staging of Prostate Cancer: A Diagnostic Meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2016; 70:233-45.
Dinneen E, Allen C, Strange T, et al. Negative mpMRI Rules Out Extra-Prostatic Extension in Prostate Cancer before Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022; 12.1057
Park KJ, Kim MH, Kim JK. Extraprostatic Tumor Extension: Comparison of Preoperative Multiparametric MRI Criteria and Histopathologic Correlation after Radical Prostatectomy. Radiology. 2020; 296:87-95.
Xu G, Xiang L, Wu J, et al. The accuracy of prostate lesion localization in cognitive fusion. Clinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation. 2020; 74:223-229.
Rais-Bahrami S, Siddiqui MM, Turkbey B, et al. Utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging suspicion levels for detecting prostate cancer. J Urol. 2013; 190:1721-1727.
Bratan F, Niaf E, Melodelima C, et al. Influence of imaging and histological factors on prostate cancer detection and localisation on multiparametric MRI: a prospective study. Eur Radiol. 2013; 23:2019-29.
Girouin N, Mège-Lechevallier F, Tonina Senes A, et al. Prostate dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI with simple visual diagnostic criteria: is it reasonable? Eur Radiol. 2007; 17:1498-509.

How to Cite

Araújo, A. S., Serra, J., Anacleto, S., Rodrigues, R., Tinoco, C., Cardoso, A., Capinha, M., Marques, V., & Mota, P. (2024). Effectiveness of cognitive fusion transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy when compared with final prostatectomy histology. Archivio Italiano Di Urologia E Andrologia, 96(4). https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2024.13194