English
Фьюжн-биопсия предстательной железы
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/urology.2019.3.142-148
А.В. Окишев, А.В. Говоров, А.О. Васильев, А.В. Бормотин, Д.Ю. Пушкарь
ФГОУ ВО «МГМСУ им. А. И. Евдокимова» Минздрава России, Москва, Россия
Материалы и методы. Поиск проводили в базах данных PubMed/Medline/Web of Science/ eLibrary по запросам (prostate cancer OR prostate adenocarcinoma) AND (MRI or magnetic resonance) AND (targeted biopsy); (prostate cancer OR prostate adenocarcinoma) AND (PHS or Histoscanning) AND (targeted biopsy) и (prostate cancer OR prostate adenocarcinoma) AND (MRI or magnetic resonance) AND (targeted biopsy) AND (cognitive registration), таргетная биопсия предстательной железы, гистосканирование предстательной железы, histoscanning, когнитивная биопсия предстательной железы.
Результаты. Отобрано 672 публикации, из них в анализ включено 25 оригинальных научных работ, в которых были опубликованы данные 4634 пациентов. По результатам анализа полученных данных, у пациентов со средним возрастом 62,5 (48 – 75) года и при среднем уровне простатспецифического антигена (ПСА) 6,3 (4,1–10,8) нг/мл частота выявления РПЖ под контролем когнитивной фьюжн-биопсии при использовании данных МРТ (МР-фьюжн-биопсия) составила 32,5%, при гистосканировании в сочетании с мультифокальной биопсией – 30%, при сочетании методик МР-фьюжн-биопсии и биопсии под контролем гистосканирования – 35%. Точность когнитивной МР-фьюжн-биопсии составила 49,8% (20,8–82%), точность биопсии под контролем аппаратной МР-фьюжн-биопсии –
52,5% (26,5–69,7%), точность таргетной биопсии под контролем гистосканирования – 46,8% (26–75,8%), наибольшая точность наблюдалась в группе пациентов без биопсии в анамнезе (75,8%). Установлено, что частота осложнений не возрастала при выполнении таргетных вколов в дополнение к стандартному протоколу трансректальной биопсии предстательной железы.
Выводы. Эффективность когнитивной МР-фьюжн-биопсии сопоставима с таковой аппаратной МР-фьюжн-биопсии. Биопсия под контролем гистосканирования имеет меньшую, чем биопсия под контролем МРТ с использованием программного обеспечения, диагностическую ценность. Отсутствие однозначных выводов в пользу выбора определенной методики фьюжн-биопсии простаты определяет актуальность дальнейших исследований по данной теме.
Литература
1. https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/annual-cancer-facts-and-figures/2017/cancer-facts-and-figures-2017.pdf 2. Hodge K.K., McNeal J.E., Terris M.K. et al. Random systemic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J. Urol. 1989;142:71–74. 3. Catalona W.J., Richie J.P., Ahmann F.R. et al. Comparsion of digital rectal examination and serum PSA in the early detection of prostate cancer: results of a multicenter clinical trial of 6630 men. J. Urol. 1994;151:1283–1290. 4. Eichler K., Hempel S., Wilby J., Myers L., Bachmann L.M., Kleijnen J. Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J. Urol. 2006;175:1605–1612. 5. Chang J.J., Shinohara K., Bhargava V. et al. Prospective evaluation of lateral biopsies of the peripheral zone of prostate cancer detection. J. Urol. 1998;160:2111–2114. 6. EAU-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. European Association of Urology. 2018;90–94. 7. Ramírez-Backhaus M., Iborra I., Gómez-Ferrer A., Rubio-Briones J. Pathologic findings in patients with prostate cancer candidates for active surveillance. Arch. Esp. Urol. 2014;67(5):431–441. 8. Poon Y., Mccallum W., Henkelman M., Sutcliffe B., Jewett A.S. Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate. Radiology. 1985;154:143–149. 9. Barentsz J.O., Richenberg J., Clements R., et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur. Radiol. 2012;22:746–757. 10. Dickinson L., Ahmed H.U., Allen C. et al. Scoring systems used for the interpretation and reporting of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancerdetection, localization, and characterization: could standardization lead toimproved utilization of imaging within the diagnostic pathway? J. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 2013;37:48–58. 11. PIRADS V2. http://www.acr.org/∼/media/ACR/Documents/PDF/QualitySafety/Resources/PIRADS/PIRADS%20V2.pdf 12. Polaneca S., Helbicha T.H., Bickela H., Domeniga K.P., Georgb D., Shariatd S.F., Aulitzkye W., Susanif M., Baltzera P.A. Head-to-head comparison of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v1. Eur. J. Radiol. 2016;85(6):1125–1131. 13. Ahmed H.U., Bosaily A.E., Brown L.C., Gabe R., Kaplan R., Parmar M.K., et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;6736:1–8. 14. National Health System (NHS). 2018. www.nhs.uk. 15. Mottet N., Bellmunt J., Bolla M., Briers E., Cumberbatch M.G., Santis M.D. et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur. Urol. 2017;71:618–629. 16. Braeckman J., Autier P., Garbar C. Et al. Computer-aided ultrasonography (HistoScanning): a novel technology for locating and characterizing prostate cancer. BJU. Int. 2008;101:293–298. 17. Moore C.M., Kasivisvanathan V., Eggener S. et al. Standards of Reporting for MRI-Targeted Biopsy Studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. Eur. Urol. 2013:64:544–552. 18. Kasivisvanathan V., Rannikko A.S., Borghi M. et. al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018;378(19):1767–1777. 19. Cerantola Y., Haberer E., Torres J. et al. Accuracy of cognitive MRI‑targeted biopsy in hitting prostate cancer‑positive regions of interest World. J.Urol. 2015. 20. Kasivisvanathan V., Dufour R., Moore C.M. et al. Transperineal Magnetic Resonance Image Targeted Prostate Biopsy Versus Transperineal Template Prostate Biopsy in the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer. The Journal of Urology. 2013;189:860–866. 21. Murphy I.G., NiMhurchu E., Gibney R.G. et al. MRI-directed cognitive fusion-guided biopsy of the anterior prostate tumors. Diagn. Interv. Radiol. 2017;23:87–93. 22. Watanabe Y., Nagavama M., Araki T. et al. Targeted biopsy basedon ADC map in the detection and localization of prostate cancer: a feasibility study. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 2013;37(5):1168–1177. 23. Cerantola Y., Dragomir A., Tanguaya S. Cost-effectiveness of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy in diagnosing prostate cancer. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations.2015;1–9. 24. Wysock J.S., Rosenkrantz A.B., Huang W.C. et al. 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. 2014;66:343–351. 25. Oberlin D.T., Casalino D.D., Miller F.H. et al. Diagnostic Value of Guided Biopsies: Fusion and Cognitive registration Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Conventional Ultrasound Biopsy of the Prostate. Urology. 2016;92: 75–79. 26. Klotz L., Loblaw A., Sugar L. et al. Active Surveillance Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study (ASIST): Results of a Randomized Multicenter Prospective Trial. Eur Urol. 2018. 27. Pokorny M.R., Maarten de Rooij, Duncan E. et al. Prospective Study of Diagnostic Accuracy Comparing Prostate Cancer Detection by Transrectal Ultrasound–Guided Biopsy Versus Magnetic Resonance (MR) Imaging with Subsequent MR-guided Biopsy in Men Without Previous Prostate Biopsies. Eur. Urol. 2014. 28. Dolgacheva D.V. Modern methods of prostate biopsy in diagnosis PCa. PhD work. 2017. Russian (Долгачева Д.В. Современные методики биопсии предстательной железы в диагностике рака». Дисс. канд. мед.наук, 2017). 29. Simmons L., Kanthabalan A., Hu Y. et. al. The UCL PICTURE trial: A prospective cohortvalidating study evaluating the accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and prostate HistoScanning compared to transperineal template mapping biopsies in patients requiring risk stratification after prior transrectal prostate biopsy. Eur. Urol. Suppl.2016;15(3):498. 30. Hamann M.F., Hamann C., Olzem D. et al. Value of perineal HistoScanning™ template-guided prostate biopsy. Urologie. 2015. 31. Govorov A.V., Vasyliev A.O., Prilepskaya E.A. Prospective comparison of random TRUS biopsy versus Prostate Histoscanning–guided and random biopsy versus MRI–guided and random biopsy: which technique is optimal for prostate cancer detection and its Grade group detection?. abstract book of annual congress AUA. 2018. 32. Glybochko P.V., Alyaev Y.G., Amosov A.V. et al. Evaluation of Prostate HistoScanning as a Method for Targeted Biopsy in Routine Practice. Eur. Urol. Focus. 2017. 33. Zubarev A.V., Boyarincev V.V., Fedorova A.A. Innovative ultrasound technology – histoscanning for diagnosis of prostate cancer. Clin. Med. 2016;1. Russian (Зубарев А.В., Бояринцев В.В., Федорова А.А. Инновационная ультразвуковая технология – гистосканирование для поиска рака простаты. Клиническая медицина. 2016;1). 34. Puech P., Rouviere O., Renard-Penna R., Villers A. et al. Multiparametric MR-targeted Biopsy with Cognitive and Transrectal US–MR Fusion Guidance versus Systematic Biopsy–Prospective Multicenter Study. Radiology. 2013;268(2):461–469. 35. Valerio M., McCartan N., Freeman A., Path F.R.C., Punwani S. et al. Visually directed vs. software-based targeted biopsy compared to transperineal template mapping biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Urol. Onc. 2015:1–8. 36. Osses D., van Asten J.J., Tijsterman J.D. Cognitive-Targeted versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Prostate Biopsy in Prostate Cancer Detection. Curr. Urol. 2017;11:182–188. 37. John S., Cooper S., Breau R.H., Flood T.A., Cagiannos I., Lavalee L.T.,Morash C. et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging – Transrectal ultrasound-guided cognitive fusion biopsy of the prostate: Clinically significant cancer detection rates stratified by the Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System version 2 assessment category.Urol. Assoc. J. 2018. 38. Lai W.J., Wang H.K., Liu H.T., Park B.K., Shen S.H., Lin T.P. et. al. Cognitive MRI-TRUS fusion-targeted prostate biopsy according to PI-RADS classification in patients with prior negative systematic biopsy results. JCMA. 2016;1–7. 39. Ploussard G., Aronson S., Pelsser V., Levental M., Anidjar M., Bladon F. Impact of the type of ultrasound probe on prostate cancer detection rate and characterization in patients undergoing MRI-targeted prostate biopsies using cognitive fusion. World J. Urol. 2013. 40. Tonttila P.P., Lantto J., Paakko E., Kauppila S., et al. Prebiopsy Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis in Biopsy-naive Men with Suspected Prostate Cancer Based on Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen Values: Results from a Randomized Prospective Blinded Controlled Trial. Eur. Urol. 2015. 41. Kaufmann S., Russo G.I., Bamberg F., Lowe L., Morgia G. et al. Prostate cancer detection in patients with prior negative biopsy undergoing cognitive‑, robotic‑ or in‑bore MRI target biopsy. World J. Urol. 2018;36:761–768. 42. Monda S.M., Velter J.M., Andriole G.L., Fowler K.J., Shelty A.S., et al. Cognitive Versus Software Fusion for MRI Targeted Biopsy: Experience Before and After Implementation of Fusion. Urol. 2018. 43. Dekalo S., Matzkin H., Mabjeesh N.J. High cancer detection rate using cognitive fusion – targeted transperineal prostate biopsies. Int. Braz. J. Urol. 2017;43(4):600–606. 44. Lee D.H., Nam J.K., Park S.W., Lee S.S., Han J.Y., et al. Visually Estimated MRI Targeted Prostate Biopsy Could Improve the Detection of Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients with a PSA Level <10 ng/ml. Yonsei Med. J. 2016;57(3):565–571. 45. Boesen L., Noergaard N., Chabanova E., Logager V., Balslev I., et al. Early experience with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsies under visual transrectal ultrasound guidance in patients suspicious for prostate cancer undergoing repeated biopsy. Scand. J. Urol. 2014. 46. Gorski A., Roupret M., Peyronnet B., Le Cossec C., et al. Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsies to Diagnose Clinical Significant Prostate Cancer in Enlarged Compared to Smaller Prostates. J. Urol. 2015;194:1–5. 47. Peltier A., Aoun F., Lemort M., Kwizera F., et al. MRI-Targeted Biopsies versus Systematic Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Biopsies for the Diagnosis of Localized Prostate Cancer in Biopsy Naive Men. Biomed Reserch Int. 2015;1–6. 48. Radtke J.P., Boxler S., Kuru T.H., Wolf M.B., Alt C.D., et al. 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. PCAN. 2015;18:288–296. 49. Abdi H., Zargar H., Goldenberg S.L., Walshe T., Pourmalek F., et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging–targeted biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer in patients with prior negative biopsy results. Urol. Onc. 2015;33:1–7. 50. Hansen N.L., Barrett T., Kesch C., Pepdjonovic L., Bonekamp D., et al. Multicentre evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging supported transperineal prostate biopsy in biopsy-na€ıve men with suspicion of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2017;122:40–49. 51. Porpiglia F., De Luca S., Passera R., Manfredi M., et al. Multiparametric-Magnetic Resonance/Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Prostate Biopsy Improves Agreement Between Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Gleason Score. Anticancer Research. 2016;36:4833–4840.
Об авторах / Для корреспонденции
А в т о р д л я с в я з и: А. В. Окишев – врач-уролог, аспирант кафедры урологии ФГОУ ВО «МГМСУ им. А. И. Евдокимова» Минздрава России, Москва, Россия; e-mail: okishev.art@gmail.com
Похожие статьи
