Objective: Prostate cancer is frequently en-countered in men. Trans-rectal ultrasound guid-ed biopsy which has low tumor detection sensi-tivity, is implemented in order to call diagnosis. In this study we aimed to evaluate the sensitivity of magnetic resonance-ultrasound (MR-US) fu-sion biopsy in the diagnosis of MR suspect le-sions and the contribution of this new method to the patient management.
Materials and Methods: Patients who were suspicious of having prostate cancer were sent from urology department to radiology depart-ment to perform multi-parametric prostate MR imaging. MR-US fusion biopsies were per-formed to patients who had PIARDS 3,4 and 5 lesion in MR imaging. 12 core standard biopsies were also performed after fusion biopsy if the patient did not have prior standard biopsy.
Results: 15 patients were included in our study (45-71 years, mean 53). MR depicted 2 PI-RADS 3, 8 PIRADS 4 and 5 PIRADS 5 lesions. In one patient with PIRADS 3 lesion, fusion biopsy result was benign prostatic tissues but standard biopsy result was Gleason 3+3 lesion, another patient with PIRADS 4 lesion both fusion and standard biopsies were benign prostatic tissues. A different patient with PIRADS 4 lesion fusion biopsy was benign after histopathologic evalua-tion. All other patient’s pathologic results were Gleason 3+3, 3+4 and 4+3 prostate cancer.
Conclusion: We think that prostate fusion biopsy can improve the pathologic results of patients by eliminating the potential sampling error of standard biopsy and with that may con-tribute to prostate cancer patient management.
Key Words: prostate cancer, prostate fusion biopsy, multi-parametric prostate MR
Abstract
Objective: Prostate cancer is frequently en-countered in men. Trans-rectal ultrasound guid-ed biopsy which has low tumor detection sensi-tivity, is implemented in order to call diagnosis. In this study we aimed to evaluate the sensitivity of magnetic resonance-ultrasound (MR-US) fu-sion biopsy in the diagnosis of MR suspect le-sions and the contribution of this new method to the patient management.
Materials and Methods: Patients who were suspicious of having prostate cancer were sent from urology department to radiology depart-ment to perform multi-parametric prostate MR imaging. MR-US fusion biopsies were per-formed to patients who had PIARDS 3,4 and 5 lesion in MR imaging. 12 core standard biopsies were also performed after fusion biopsy if the patient did not have prior standard biopsy.
Results: 15 patients were included in our study (45-71 years, mean 53). MR depicted 2 PI-RADS 3, 8 PIRADS 4 and 5 PIRADS 5 lesions. In one patient with PIRADS 3 lesion, fusion biopsy result was benign prostatic tissues but standard biopsy result was Gleason 3+3 lesion, another patient with PIRADS 4 lesion both fusion and standard biopsies were benign prostatic tissues. A different patient with PIRADS 4 lesion fusion biopsy was benign after histopathologic evalua-tion. All other patient’s pathologic results were Gleason 3+3, 3+4 and 4+3 prostate cancer.
Conclusion: We think that prostate fusion biopsy can improve the pathologic results of patients by eliminating the potential sampling error of standard biopsy and with that may con-tribute to prostate cancer patient management.
Key Words: prostate cancer, prostate fusion biopsy, multi-parametric prostate MR