Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy for prediction of final prostate pathology. journal of urology Le, J. D., Stephenson, S., Brugger, M., Lu, D. Y., Lieu, P., Sonn, G. A., Natarajan, S., Dorey, F. J., Huang, J., Margolis, D. J., Reiter, R. E., Marks, L. S. 2014; 192 (5): 1367-1373


We explored the impact of magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy on the prediction of final surgical pathology.A total of 54 consecutive men undergoing radical prostatectomy at UCLA after fusion biopsy were included in this prospective, institutional review board approved pilot study. Using magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion, tissue was obtained from a 12-point systematic grid (mapping biopsy) and from regions of interest detected by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (targeted biopsy). A single radiologist read all magnetic resonance imaging, and a single pathologist independently rereviewed all biopsy and whole mount pathology, blinded to prior interpretation and matched specimen. Gleason score concordance between biopsy and prostatectomy was the primary end point.Mean patient age was 62 years and median prostate specific antigen was 6.2 ng/ml. Final Gleason score at prostatectomy was 6 (13%), 7 (70%) and 8-9 (17%). A tertiary pattern was detected in 17 (31%) men. Of 45 high suspicion (image grade 4-5) magnetic resonance imaging targets 32 (71%) contained prostate cancer. The per core cancer detection rate was 20% by systematic mapping biopsy and 42% by targeted biopsy. The highest Gleason pattern at prostatectomy was detected by systematic mapping biopsy in 54%, targeted biopsy in 54% and a combination in 81% of cases. Overall 17% of cases were upgraded from fusion biopsy to final pathology and 1 (2%) was downgraded. The combination of targeted biopsy and systematic mapping biopsy was needed to obtain the best predictive accuracy.In this pilot study magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy allowed for the prediction of final prostate pathology with greater accuracy than that reported previously using conventional methods (81% vs 40% to 65%). If confirmed, these results will have important clinical implications.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2014.04.094

View details for PubMedID 24793118