Skip to main content
Home
Zeitschriften
Zeitungen
Podcast
Gesundheitspolitik
Praxis
Allerlei
Jobs
Fachgebiete
Allgemeinmedizin Anästhesiologie & Intensivmedizin Apotheke Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kinder & Jugendheilkunde Neurologie & Psychiatrie Orthopädie & Unfallchirurgie Pflege Urologie Zahnmedizin
Subfächer Innere Medizin
Diabetologie Gastroenterologie Infektiologie Kardiologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Pneumologie Rheumatologie
Fortbildungen
Überblick Fortbildungen DFP-Literaturstudium-Artikel DFP-Webcast Fortbildungen DFP-Podcasts
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Urologie in der Praxis
Erschienen in:

09.11.2018 | Originalien

Ein neuer Goldstandard der Prostatakarzinomdiagnostik?

Bedeutung der bildgebungsgestützten gezielten Biopsien

verfasst von: Stefan Behrens, Mykyta Kachanov, PD Dr. med. Lars Budäus

Erschienen in: Urologie in der Praxis | Ausgabe 4/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Zusammenfassung

Aktuelle Studien zeigen einen Nutzen der MRT in Erst- und Rebiopsien für die Prostatakrebsdiagnostik. Eindrucksvoll wurden in mehreren Vergleichsstudien eine erhöhte Detektionsrate von klinisch signifikanten sowie anterior gelegenen Prostatakarzinomen, geringere Nebenwirkungen für den Patienten nach der Biopsie und eine niedrigere Diagnoserate von „low risk“ Prostatakarzinomen nachgewiesen. Die Qualitätsverbesserung der diagnostischen Optionen wurde nicht nur durch den Fortschritt der Technik, sondern auch die Einführung von PI-RADS v2 für die Befundstandardisierung der mpMRT-Bilder maßgeblich beeinflusst.
Dieser Artikel fasst den aktuellen Forschungsstand der PCa-Diagnostik zusammen und beschäftigt sich mit den Funktionsweisen, Opportunitäten sowie Limitationen neuer Möglichkeiten im Vergleich zur systematischen Biopsie.
Vorheriger Artikel Fieberhafter Harnwegsinfekt mit Harntraktdilatation
Nächster Artikel Embolisation der Prostataarterien zur Behandlung des benignen Prostatasyndroms: Reif für den klinischen Alltag?
Literatur
1.
Ferlay J, Steliarova-Foucher E, Lortet-Tieulent J, Rosso S, Coebergh JW, Comber H et al (2013) Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer 49(6):1374–1403PubMedCrossRef
2.
Bell KJ, Del Mar C, Wright G, Dickinson J, Glasziou P (2015) Prevalence of incidental prostate cancer: a systematic review of autopsy studies. Int J Cancer 137(7):1749–1757PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
3.
4.
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389(10071):815–822PubMedCrossRef
5.
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH et al (2018) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 378(19):1767–1777PubMedCrossRef
6.
Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, Barentsz JO, Carey B, Futterer JJ et al (2013) Scoring systems used for the interpretation and reporting of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection, localization, and characterization: could standardization lead to improved utilization of imaging within the diagnostic pathway? J Magn Reson Imaging 37(1):48–58PubMedCrossRef
7.
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging – reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69(1):16–40PubMedCrossRef
8.
Kuhl CK, Bruhn R, Kramer N, Nebelung S, Heidenreich A, Schrading S (2017) Abbreviated biparametric prostate MR imaging in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen. Radiology 285(2):493–505PubMedCrossRef
9.
Radtke JP, Boxler S, Kuru TH, Wolf MB, Alt CD, Popeneciu IV et al (2015) Improved detection of anterior fibromuscular stroma and transition zone prostate cancer using biparametric and multiparametric MRI with MRI-targeted biopsy and MRI-US fusion guidance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 18:288PubMedCrossRef
10.
Holm HH, Gammelgaard J (1981) Ultrasonically guided precise needle placement in the prostate and the seminal vesicles. J Urol 125(3):385–387PubMedCrossRef
11.
Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA (1989) Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 142(1):71–74 (discussion 4–5)PubMedCrossRef
12.
Stamey TA (1995) Making the most out of six systematic sextant biopsies. Urology 45(1):2–12PubMedCrossRef
13.
Abdelsayed GA, Danial T, Kaswick JA, Finley DS (2015) Tumors of the anterior prostate: implications for diagnosis and treatment. J Urol 85(6):1224–1228CrossRef
14.
Toi A, Neill MG, Lockwood GA, Sweet JM, Tammsalu LA, Fleshner NE (2007) The continuing importance of transrectal ultrasound identification of prostatic lesions. J Urol 177(2):516–520PubMedCrossRef
15.
Moussa AS, Meshref A, Schoenfield L, Masoud A, Abdel-Rahman S, Li J et al (2010) Importance of additional „extreme“ anterior apical needle biopsies in the initial detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 75(5):1034–1039CrossRef
16.
Scattoni V, Zlotta A, Montironi R, Schulman C, Rigatti P, Montorsi F (2007) Extended and saturation prostatic biopsy in the diagnosis and characterisation of prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol 52(5):1309–1322PubMedCrossRef
17.
Jones JS, Patel A, Schoenfield L, Rabets JC, Zippe CD, Magi-Galluzzi C (2006) Saturation technique does not improve cancer detection as an initial prostate biopsy strategy. J Urol 175(2):485–488PubMedCrossRef
18.
Xue J, Qin Z, Cai H, Zhang C, Li X, Xu W et al (2017) Comparison between transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy for detection of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Oncotarget 8(14):23322–23336PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
19.
Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, Catto J, Emberton M, Nam R et al (2013) Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 64(6):876–892PubMedCrossRef
20.
Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MG (2015) 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 68(3):438–450PubMedCrossRef
21.
Koppie TM, Bianco FJ Jr., Kuroiwa K, Reuter VE, Guillonneau B, Eastham JA et al (2006) The clinical features of anterior prostate cancers. BJU Int 98(6):1167–1171PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
22.
Bouye S, Potiron E, Puech P, Leroy X, Lemaitre L, Villers A (2009) Transition zone and anterior stromal prostate cancers: zone of origin and intraprostatic patterns of spread at histopathology. Prostate 69(1):105–113PubMedCrossRef
23.
Leyh-Bannurah SR, Kachanov M, Beyersdorff D, Preisser F, Tilki D, Fisch M et al (2018) Anterior localization of prostate cancer suspicious magnetic resonance imaging lesions in patients undergoing initial and repeat biopsy: results from 1,161 patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided targeted biopsies. J Urol. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​juro.​2018.​06.​026 PubMedCrossRef
24.
25.
Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, Hooft L, Bosch J, Reitsma HB, Barentsz JO et al (2017) 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 71(4):517–531PubMedCrossRef
26.
Delongchamps NB, Peyromaure M, Schull A, Beuvon F, Bouazza N, Flam T et al (2013) Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer detection: comparison of random and targeted biopsies. J Urol 189(2):493–499PubMedCrossRef
27.
Park BK, Park JW, Park SY, Kim CK, Lee HM, Jeon SS et al (2011) Prospective evaluation of 3‑T MRI performed before initial transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with high prostate-specific antigen and no previous biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197(5):W876–W881PubMedCrossRef
28.
Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, Stifelman MD, Lepor H, Deng FM et al (2014) A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial. Eur Urol 66(2):343–351PubMedCrossRef
29.
Puech P, Rouviere O, Renard-Penna R, Villers A, Devos P, Colombel M et al (2013) Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy – prospective multicenter study. Radiology 268(2):461–469PubMedCrossRef
30.
Kongnyuy M, George AK, Rastinehad AR, Pinto PA (2016) Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy: review of technology, techniques, and outcomes. Curr Urol Rep 17(4):32PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
31.
Krucker J, Xu S, Venkatesan A, Locklin JK, Amalou H, Glossop N et al (2011) Clinical utility of real-time fusion guidance for biopsy and ablation. J Vasc Interv Radiol 22(4):515–524PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
32.
Presti JC Jr., O’Dowd GJ, Miller MC, Mattu R, Veltri RW (2003) Extended peripheral zone biopsy schemes increase cancer detection rates and minimize variance in prostate specific antigen and age related cancer rates: results of a community multi-practice study. J Urol 169(1):125–129PubMedCrossRef
33.
Patel AR, Jones JS, Rabets J, DeOreo G, Zippe CD (2004) Parasagittal biopsies add minimal information in repeat saturation prostate biopsy. J Urol 63(1):87–89CrossRef
34.
Stewart CS, Leibovich BC, Weaver AL, Lieber MM (2001) Prostate cancer diagnosis using a saturation needle biopsy technique after previous negative sextant biopsies. J Urol 166(1):86–92PubMedCrossRef
35.
Shida Y, Hakariya T, Takehara K, Onita T, Miyata Y, Sakai H (2016) Comparison between a combined transrectal and transperineal approach and a transrectal approach for prostate rebiopsy. Anticancer Res 36(9):4685–4690PubMedCrossRef
36.
Abdollah F, Novara G, Briganti A, Scattoni V, Raber M, Roscigno M et al (2011) Trans-rectal versus trans-perineal saturation rebiopsy of the prostate: is there a difference in cancer detection rate? J Urol 77(4):921–925CrossRef
37.
38.
Jansson KF, Akre O, Garmo H, Bill-Axelson A, Adolfsson J, Stattin P et al (2012) Concordance of tumor differentiation among brothers with prostate cancer. Eur Urol 62(4):656–661PubMedCrossRef
39.
40.
Greer MD, Brown AM, Shih JH, Summers RM, Marko J, Law YM et al (2017) Accuracy and agreement of PIRADSv2 for prostate cancer mpMRI: a multireader study. J Magn Reson Imaging 45(2):579–585PubMedCrossRef
41.
Volkin D, Turkbey B, Hoang AN, Rais-Bahrami S, Yerram N, Walton-Diaz A et al (2014) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and subsequent MRI/ultrasonography fusion-guided biopsy increase the detection of anteriorly located prostate cancers. BJU Int 114(6b):E43–E49PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
42.
Faria R, Soares MO, Spackman E, Ahmed HU, Brown LC, Kaplan R et al (2018) Optimising the diagnosis of prostate cancer in the era of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on the PROstate MR Imaging Study (PROMIS). Eur Urol 73(1):23–30PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
43.
Barnett CL, Davenport MS, Montgomery JS, Wei JT, Montie JE, Denton BT (2018) Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging and targeted fusion biopsy for early detection of prostate cancer. BJU Int 122(1):50–58PubMedCrossRef
44.
Franz T, von Hardenberg J, Blana A, Cash H, Baumunk D, Salomon G et al (2017) MRI/TRUS fusion-guided prostate biopsy: value in the context of focal therapy. Urologe A 56(2):208–216PubMedCrossRef
45.
van den Bergh RC, Vasarainen H, van der Poel HG, Vis-Maters JJ, Rietbergen JB, Pickles T et al (2010) Short-term outcomes of the prospective multicentre Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance study. BJU Int 105(7):956–962PubMedCrossRef
46.
Kryvenko ON, Carter HB, Trock BJ, Epstein JI (2014) Biopsy criteria for determining appropriateness for active surveillance in the modern era. J Urol 83(4):869–874CrossRef
47.
Tran GN, Leapman MS, Nguyen HG, Cowan JE, Shinohara K, Westphalen AC et al (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy during prostate cancer active surveillance. Eur Urol 72(2):275–281PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Ein neuer Goldstandard der Prostatakarzinomdiagnostik?
Bedeutung der bildgebungsgestützten gezielten Biopsien
verfasst von
Stefan Behrens
Mykyta Kachanov
PD Dr. med. Lars Budäus
Publikationsdatum
09.11.2018
Verlag
Springer Vienna
Erschienen in
Urologie in der Praxis / Ausgabe 4/2018
Print ISSN: 2661-8737
Elektronische ISSN: 2661-8745
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41973-018-0037-4

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2018