Advertisement

Uro-News

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 38–46 | Cite as

Diagnostik des Prostatakarzinoms

mpMRT-Fusionsbiopsie: Stellenwert und Datenlage

  • Lukas Koneval
  • Ioannis Sokolakis
  • Annette Thurner
  • Daniel Lukaszyk
  • Hubert Kübler
  • Georgios Hatzichristodoulou
Zertifizierte Fortbildung
  • 49 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Die konventionelle systematische Prostatastanzbiopsie ist nach wie vor der Goldstandard in der Diagnostik des Prostatakarzinom. Die Zukunft dürfte jedoch der mpMRT-Fusionsbiopsie gehören — einer schon heute wertvollen diagnostischen Methode. Ein Überblick über aktuelle Leitlinienempfehlungen, Publikationsdaten und Erfahrungen aus der Klinik.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Siddiqui MM et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA. 2015; 313: 390–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahmed HU et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. The Lancet. 2017; 389: 815–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kasivisvanathan V et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018; 379: 589–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    S3 Leitlinie Prostatakarzinom, AWMF Version 5.0, April 2018, Abschnitt 4.2.2., Tabelle 4.17 und 4.18Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Delongchamps NB et al. Are Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Targeted Biopsies Noninferior to Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Systematic Biopsies for the Detection of Prostate Cancer? J Urol. 2016; 196: 1069–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Peltier A et al. MRI-targeted biopsies versus systematic transrectal ultrasound guided biopsies for the diagnosis of localized prostate cancer in biopsy naive men. Biomed Res Int. 2015; 2015: 571708.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baco E et al. A Randomized Controlled Trial To Assess and Compare the Outcomes of Two-core Prostate Biopsy Guided by Fused Magnetic Resonance and Transrectal Ultrasound Images and Traditional 12-core Systematic Biopsy. Eur Urol. 2016; 69: 149–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wegelin O et al. 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. 2017; 71: 517–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Filson CP et al. Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: The role of systematic and targeted biopsies. Cancer. 2016; 122: 884–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Gorski A et al. Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsies to Diagnose Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Enlarged Compared to Smaller Prostates. J Urol. 2015; 194: 669–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schoots IG et al. 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. 2015; 68: 438–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aigner F et al. Value of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer diagnosis, World J Urol. 2007; 25: 351–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Xu S et al. Real-time MRI-TRUS fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsies, Comput Aided Surg. 2008; 13: 255–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barentsz JO et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012; 22: 746–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weinreb JC et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016; 69: 16–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barentsz JO et al. Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 Guidelines for Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Recommendations for Use. Eur Urol. 2016; 69: 41–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Woo S et al. Diagnostic Performance of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2017; 72: 177–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bryant RJ et al. Comparison of prostate biopsy with or without pre-biopsy multi-parametric MRI in prostatecancer detection: an observational cohort study. J Urol. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.09.049Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bonekamp D et al. Histopathological to multiparametric MRI spatial mapping of extended systematic sextant and MR/TRUS-fusion-targeted biopsy of the prostate. Eur Radiol. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5751-1Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Franz T et al. MRT/TRUS-fusionierte Biopsiesysteme, Der Urologe. 2017; 56: 208–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Logan JK et al. Current status of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography fusion software platforms for guidance of prostate biopsies. BJU Int. 2014; 114: 641–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mariotti GC et al. Magnetic resonance/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy of the prostate compared to systematic 12-core biopsy for the diagnosis and characterization of prostate cancer: multi-institutional retrospective analysis of 389 patients, Urol Oncol. 2016; 34: 416.e9–416.e14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Salami SS et al. In patients with a previous negative prostate biopsy and a suspicious lesion on magnetic resonance imaging, is a 12-core biopsy still necessary in addition to a targeted biopsy? BJU Int. 2015; 115: 562–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sidana A et al. Fusion prostate biopsy outperforms 12-core systematic prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative systematic biopsy: A multi-institutional analysis, Urol Oncol. 2018; 36: 341.e1–341.e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barnett CL et al. Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging and targeted fusion biopsy for early detection of prostate cancer, BJU Int. 2018; 122: 50–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Faria R et al. 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. 2018; 73: 23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lukas Koneval
    • 1
  • Ioannis Sokolakis
    • 2
  • Annette Thurner
    • 2
  • Daniel Lukaszyk
    • 2
  • Hubert Kübler
    • 2
  • Georgios Hatzichristodoulou
    • 2
  1. 1.Klinik und Poliklinik für Urologie und KinderurologieUniversitätsklinikum WürzburgWürzburgDeutschland
  2. 2.

Personalised recommendations