Abstract

Prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostic and therapeutic work-up has evolved significantly in the last decade, with pre-biopsy multiparametric MRI now widely endorsed within international guidelines. There is potential to move away from the widespread use of systematic biopsy cores and towards an individualised risk-stratified approach. However, the evidence on the optimal biopsy approach remains heterogeneous, and the aim of this review is to highlight the most relevant features following a critical assessment of the literature. The commonest biopsy approaches are via the transperineal (TP) or transrectal (TR) routes. The former is considered more advantageous due to its negligible risk of post-procedural sepsis and reduced need for antimicrobial prophylaxis; the more recent development of local anaesthetic (LA) methods now makes this approach feasible in the clinic. Beyond this, several techniques are available, including cognitive registration, MRI–Ultrasound fusion imaging and direct MRI in-bore guided biopsy. Evidence shows that performing targeted biopsies reduces the number of cores required and can achieve acceptable rates of detection whilst helping to minimise complications and reducing pathologist workloads and costs to health-care facilities. Pre-biopsy MRI has revolutionised the diagnostic pathway for PCa, and optimising the biopsy process is now a focus. Combining MR imaging, TP biopsy and a more widespread use of LA in an outpatient setting seems a reasonable solution to balance health-care costs and benefits, however, local choices are likely to depend on the expertise and experience of clinicians and on the technology available.

Highlights

  • Prostate cancer (PCa) is the commonest male cancer in the UK, with an estimated 12% increase between 2014 and 2035, translating to around 233/100,000 men by 2035.1 Despite this, a high proportion of tumours are considered indolent and do not require active treatment,[2] making it important to adequately control cancer mortality as well as reducing overdiagnosis and overtreatment

  • Guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the European Association of Urology (EAU) and the American College of Radiology (ACR) recommend pre-­biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to localise suspicious lesions for subsequent targeting at biopsy, or to safely avoid in low risk cases.[4,5] mpMRI incorporates high-r­esolution anatomical T2 weighted images (T2WI) and the functional sequences diffusion-­weighted MRI (DWI) and dynamic contrast-­enhanced (DCE) MRI, and should be performed and reported to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-R­ ADS) v. 2.1 standards.[6]

  • The 4M trial did not find a significant difference in the detection of Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in targeted biopsy (TB) vs systematic biopsy (SB), the results showed that TB detect fewer cases of insignificant PCa.[10]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the commonest male cancer in the UK, with an estimated 12% increase between 2014 and 2035, translating to around 233/100,000 men by 2035.1 Despite this, a high proportion of tumours are considered indolent and do not require active treatment,[2] making it important to adequately control cancer mortality as well as reducing overdiagnosis and overtreatment. 2.1 standards.[6] The costs of an MRI-­led diagnostic service are estimated to be 14.6% higher than traditional TRUS biopsy pathways[7 ]; this assumes all males receive a biopsy procedure and avoiding this in a subset of males will likely overcome this differential, and may even lead to cost savings.[8] Cost-­effective analyses have suggested an mpMRI first approach, followed by TRUS MRI-­targeted biopsies, is more cost-­effective for detecting csPCa than a systematic TRUS biopsy first strategy.[9]. As the evidence on the optimal biopsy approach is still heterogeneous, the aim of this review is to highlight its most relevant features following a critical assessment of the literature

Objectives
Methods
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.