Dataset Information

What is the risk of prostate cancer mortality following negative systematic TRUS-guided biopsies? A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To investigate the risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) following initial negative systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) prostate biopsies.

Design

Systematic review.

Data sources

PubMed and Embase were searched using a string combination with keywords/Medical Subject Headings terms and free text in the search builder. Date of search was 13 April 2020.

Study selection

Studies addressing PCSM following initial negative TRUS biopsies. Randomised controlled trials and population-based studies including men with initial negative TRUS biopsies reported in English from 1990 until present were included.

Data extraction

Data extraction was done using a predefined form by two authors independently and compared with confirm data; risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies when applicable.

Results

Four eligible studies were identified. Outcomes were reported differently in the studies as both cumulative incidence and Kaplan-Meier estimates have been used. Regardless of the study differences, all studies reported low estimated incidence of PCSM of 1.8%-5.2% in men with negative TRUS biopsies during the following 10-20 years. Main limitation in all studies was limited follow-up.

Conclusion

Only a few studies have investigated the risk of PCSM following initial negative biopsies and all studies included patients before the era of MRI of the prostate. However, the studies point to the fact that the risk of PCSM is low following initial negative TRUS biopsies, and that the level of prostate-specific antigen before biopsies holds prognostic information. This may be considered when advising patients about the need for further diagnostic evaluation.

Prospero registration number

CRD42019134548.

SUBMITTER: Kawa SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7751212 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What is the risk of prostate cancer mortality following negative systematic TRUS-guided biopsies? A systematic review.

Kawa Sandra Miriam SM Benzon Larsen Signe S Helgstrand John Thomas JT Iversen Peter P Brasso Klaus K Røder Martin Andreas MA

BMJ open 20201218 12

<h4>Objective</h4>To investigate the risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) following initial negative systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) prostate biopsies.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review.<h4>Data sources</h4>PubMed and Embase were searched using a string combination with keywords/Medical Subject Headings terms and free text in the search builder. Date of search was 13 April 2020.<h4>Study selection</h4>Studies addressing PCSM following initial negative TRUS biopsies. Ra ...[more]

PMID: 33371032

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction: There is still an ongoing debate whether a transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) approach for prostate biopsies is associated with higher (infectious) complications rates compared to transperineal biopsies. This is especially of great interests in settings with elevated frequencies of multidrug resistant organisms (MDRO). Materials and Methods: Between 01/2018 and 05/2019 230 patients underwent a TRUS-guided prostate biopsy at the department of Urology at University Hospital Frankfurt. Patients were followed up within the clinical routine that was not conducted earlier than 6 weeks after the biopsy. Among 230 biopsies, 180 patients took part in the follow-up. No patients were excluded. Patients were analyzed retrospectively regarding complications, infections and underlying infectious agents or needed interventions. Results: Of all patients with follow up, 84 patients underwent a systematic biopsy (SB) and 96 a targeted biopsy (TB) after MRI of the prostate with additional SB. 74.8% of the patients were biopsy-naïve. The most frequent objective complications (classified by Clavien-Dindo) lasting longer than one day after biopsy were hematuria (17.9%, n = 32), hematospermia (13.9%, n = 25), rectal bleeding (2.8%, n = 5), and pain (2.2%, n = 4). Besides a known high MDRO prevalence in the Rhine-Main region, only one patient (0.6%) developed fever after biopsy. One patient each (0.6%) consulted a physician due to urinary retention, rectal bleeding or gross hematuria. There were no significant differences in complications seen between SB and SB + TB patients. The rate of patients who consulted a physician was significantly higher for patients with one or more prior biopsies compared to biopsy-naïve patients. Conclusion: Complications after transrectal prostate biopsies are rare and often self-limiting. Infections were seen in <1% of all patients, regardless of an elevated local prevalence of MDROs. Severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ? IIIa) were only seen in 3 (1.7%) of the patients. Repeated biopsy is associated with higher complication rates in general.

Project description:The current standard for Prostate Cancer (PCa) detection in biopsy-naïve men consists of 10-12 systematic biopsies under ultrasound guidance. This approach leads to underdiagnosis and undergrading of significant PCa while insignificant PCa may be overdiagnosed. The recent developments in MRI and Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) imaging have sparked an increasing interest in PCa imaging with the ultimate goal of replacing these "blind" systematic biopsies with reliable imaging-based targeted biopsies.In this trial, we evaluate and compare the PCa detection rates of multiparametric (mp)MRI-targeted biopsies, CEUS-targeted biopsies and systematic biopsies under ultrasound guidance in the same patients. After informed consent, 299 biopsy-naïve men will undergo mpMRI scanning and CEUS imaging 1 week prior to the prostate biopsy procedure. During the biopsy procedure, a systematic transrectal 12-core biopsy will be performed by one operator blinded for the imaging results and targeted biopsy procedure. Subsequently a maximum of 4 CEUS-targeted biopsies and/or 4 mpMRI-targeted biopsies of predefined locations determined by an expert CEUS reader using quantification techniques and an expert radiologist, respectively, will be taken by a second operator using an MRI-US fusion device. The primary outcome is the detection rate of PCa (all grades) and clinically significant PCa (defined as Gleason score ?7) compared between the three biopsy protocols.This trial compares the detection rate of (clinically significant) PCa, between both traditional systematic biopsies and targeted biopsies based on predefined regions of interest identified by two promising imaging technologies. It follows published recommendations on study design for the evaluation of imaging guided prostate biopsy techniques, minimizing bias and allowing data pooling. It is the first trial to combine mpMRI imaging and advanced CEUS imaging with quantification.The Dutch Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects registration number NL52851.018.15, registered on 3 Nov 2015. Clinicaltrials.gov database registration number NCT02831920 , retrospectively registered on 5 July 2016.

Project description:BackgroundOur objective was to develop and validate a multi-feature nuclear score based on image analysis of direct DNA staining, and to test its association with field effects and subsequent detection of prostate cancer (PCa) in benign biopsies.MethodsTissue sections from 39 prostatectomies were Feulgen-stained and digitally scanned (400×), providing maps of DNA content per pixel. PCa and benign epithelial nuclei were randomly selected for measurement of 52 basic morphometric features. Logistic regression models discriminating benign from PCa nuclei, and benign from malignant nuclear populations, were built and cross-validated by AUC analysis. Nuclear populations were randomly collected <1 mm or >5 mm from cancer foci, and from cancer-free prostates, HGPIN, and PCa Gleason grade 3-5. Nuclei also were collected from negative biopsy subjects who had a subsequent diagnosis of PCa and age-matched cancer-free controls (20 pairs).ResultsA multi-feature nuclear score discriminated cancer from benign cell populations with AUCs of 0.91 and 0.79, respectively, in training and validation sets of patients. In prostatectomy samples, both nuclear- and population-level models revealed cancer-like features in benign nuclei adjacent to PCa, compared to nuclei that were more distant or from PCa-free glands. In negative biopsies, a validated model with 5 variance features yielded significantly higher scores in cases than controls (P = 0.026).ConclusionsA multifeature nuclear morphometric score, obtained by automated digital analysis, was validated for discrimination of benign from cancer nuclei. This score demonstrated field effects in benign epithelial nuclei at varying distance from PCa lesions, and was associated with subsequent PCa detection in negative biopsies.ImpactThis nuclear score shows promise as a risk predictor among men with negative biopsies and as an intermediate biomarker in Phase II chemoprevention trials. The results also suggest that subvisual disturbances in nuclear structure precede the development of pre-neoplastic lesions.

Project description:Registration and fusion of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) of the prostate can provide guidance for prostate brachytherapy. However, accurate registration remains a challenging task due to the lack of ground truth regarding voxel-level spatial correspondence, limited field of view, low contrast-to-noise ratio, and signal-to-noise ratio in TRUS. In this study, we proposed a fully automated deep learning approach based on a weakly supervised method to address these issues. We employed deep learning techniques to combine image segmentation and registration, including affine and nonrigid registration, to perform an automated deformable MRI-TRUS registration. To start with, we trained two separate fully convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to perform a pixel-wise prediction for MRI and TRUS prostate segmentation. Then, to provide the initialization of the registration, a 2D CNN was used to register MRI-TRUS prostate images using an affine registration. After that, a 3D UNET-like network was applied for nonrigid registration. For both the affine and nonrigid registration, pairs of MRI-TRUS labels were concatenated and fed into the neural networks for training. Due to the unavailability of ground-truth voxel-level correspondences and the lack of accurate intensity-based image similarity measures, we propose to use prostate label-derived volume overlaps and surface agreements as an optimization objective function for weakly supervised network training. Specifically, we proposed a hybrid loss function that integrated a Dice loss, a surface-based loss, and a bending energy regularization loss for the nonrigid registration. The Dice and surface-based losses were used to encourage the alignment of the prostate label between the MRI and the TRUS. The bending energy regularization loss was used to achieve a smooth deformation field. Thirty-six sets of patient data were used to test our registration method. The image registration results showed that the deformed MR image aligned well with the TRUS image, as judged by corresponding cysts and calcifications in the prostate. The quantitative results showed that our method produced a mean target registration error (TRE) of 2.53 ± 1.39 mm and a mean Dice loss of 0.91 ± 0.02. The mean surface distance (MSD) and Hausdorff distance (HD) between the registered MR prostate shape and TRUS prostate shape were 0.88 and 4.41 mm, respectively. This work presents a deep learning-based, weakly supervised network for accurate MRI-TRUS image registration. Our proposed method has achieved promising registration performance in terms of Dice loss, TRE, MSD, and HD.

Project description:BackgroundCurrently, follow-up protocols are applied equally to men on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) regardless of findings at their initial follow-up biopsy. To determine whether less intensive follow-up is suitable following negative biopsy findings, we assessed the risk of converting to active treatment, any subsequent upgrading, volume progression (>33% positive cores), and serious upgrading (grade group >2) for negative compared with positive findings on initial follow-up biopsy.Methods13,161 men from 24 centres participating in the Global Action Plan Active Surveillance Prostate Cancer [GAP3] consortium database, with baseline grade group ≤2, PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL, cT-stage 1-2, diagnosed after 1995, and ≥1 follow-up biopsy, were included in this study. Risk of converting to treatment was assessed using multivariable mixed-effects survival regression. Odds of volume progression, any upgrading and serious upgrading were assessed using mix-effects binary logistic regression for men with ≥2 surveillance biopsies.Results27% of the cohort (n = 3590) had no evidence of PCa at their initial biopsy. Over 50% of subsequent biopsies in this group were also negative. A negative initial biopsy was associated with lower risk of conversion (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42-0.49), subsequent upgrading (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.52; 95%CI: 0.45-0.62) and serious upgrading (OR: 0.74; 95%CI: 0.59-92). Radiological progression was not assessed due to limited imaging data.ConclusionDespite heterogeneity in follow-up schedules, findings from this global study indicated reduced risk of converting to treatment, volume progression, any upgrading and serious upgrading among men whose initial biopsy findings were negative compared with positive. Given the low risk of progression and high likelihood of further negative biopsy findings, consideration should be given to decreasing follow-up intensity for this group to reduce unnecessary invasive biopsies.

Dataset Information

What is the risk of prostate cancer mortality following negative systematic TRUS-guided biopsies? A systematic review.

Objective

Design

Data sources

Study selection

Data extraction

Results

Conclusion

Prospero registration number

Publications

What is the risk of prostate cancer mortality following negative systematic TRUS-guided biopsies? A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets