nach oben

Journal für Urologie und Urogynäkologie/Österreich

Erschienen in:

18.10.2018 | Originalien

Ein neuer Goldstandard der Prostatakarzinomdiagnostik?

Bedeutung der bildgebungsgestützten gezielten Biopsien

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

Erschienen in: Journal für Urologie und Urogynäkologie/Österreich | 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.

Nächster Artikel Embolisation der Prostataarterien zur Behandlung des benignen Prostatasyndroms: Reif für den klinischen Alltag?

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

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

Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, AWMF (2018) Interdisziplinäre Leitlinie der Qualität S3 zur Früherkennung, Diagnose und Therapie der verschiedenen Stadien des Prostatakarzinoms, Langversion 5.0, AWMF Registernummer: 043/022OL. Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF) (http://www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/leitlinien/prostatakarzinom/ (abgerufen am: 20.08.2018))

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

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):1767–1777PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral

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

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

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

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.

Leyh-Bannurah SR, Karakiewicz PI, Dell’Oglio P, Briganti A, Schiffmann J, Pompe RS et al (2017) Comparison of 11 active surveillance protocols in contemporary European men treated with radical prostatectomy. Clin Genitourin Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2017.08.005 PubMedCrossRef

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.

Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Bourke L, Cornford P, De Santis M et al (2018) European Association of Urology: guidelines on prostate cancer 2018. EAU guidelines Edn presented at the EAU Annual Congress Copenhagen 2018. http://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/EAU-ESUR-ESTRO-SIOG-Guidelines-on-Prostate-Cancer-large-text-V2.pdf. Zugegriffen: 20. Aug. 2018

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.

Sonn GA, Fan RE, Ghanouni P, Wang NN, Brooks JD, Loening AM et al (2017) Prostate magnetic resonance imaging interpretation varies substantially across radiologists. Eur Urol Focus. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.11.010 PubMedCrossRef

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

Titel: Ein neuer Goldstandard der Prostatakarzinomdiagnostik?
Bedeutung der bildgebungsgestützten gezielten Biopsien
verfasst von: Stefan Behrens
Mykyta Kachanov
PD Dr. med. Lars Budäus
Publikationsdatum: 18.10.2018
Verlag: Springer Vienna
Erschienen in: Journal für Urologie und Urogynäkologie/Österreich / Ausgabe 4/2018
Print ISSN: 1023-6090
Elektronische ISSN: 1680-9424
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41972-018-0053-z

Springer Medizin Österreich

Zusammenfassung

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten