:: Volume 26, Issue 2 (Bimonthly 2022) ::
Feyz 2022, 26(2): 220-227 Back to browse issues page
Prevalence of prostate cancer in MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy patients with suspected lesion in Multi-Parametric MRI with PI-RADS 2 and 3 who have previously undergone prostate biopsy
Kimiya Katebi , Mohammadreza Khaleghi , Hooman Bakhshandeh , Mahyar Ghafoori *
Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, I.R. Iran. , ghafoori.m@iums.ac.ir
Abstract:   (1180 Views)
Background: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men over seventy years. Prevalence of prostate cancer is reported diversely in PIRADS2,3 group in Multi-parametric MRI in previous studies and there is no similar examinations in Iran. The present study was investigated to prevalence of prostate cancer in these patients in Iranians for the first time, retrospectively.
Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was performed in 2019 on 159 patients with suspected prostate cancer in Hazrat Rasoul Hospital. After obtaining informed consent, age and PSA levels, multi-parametric MRI results and MRI/TRUS Fusion Biopsy pathologic results was determined. Data analysis was performed using Statistical tests in SPSS 22 software.
Results: The mean age of the patients was 61.96±8.49 years. The mean prostate volume of these patients was 59.57±31.09 with a range of (178-208). According to MRI results 61.6% had PI-RADS3, and 38.4% had PI-RADS2. There was no significant relationship between age, prostate volume, and PI-RADS (P>0.05). Prostate volume increased significantly with age. According to biopsy results, 23.3% had cancer and 76.7% had benign prostatic hyperplasia. The prevalence of cancer was 19.7% in PI-RADS2, and 25.5% in PI-RADS3.
Conclusion: The prevalence of cancer in patients with PI-RADS2,3 lesions was 23.3%, which comprises a significant portion of patients. Biopsy in PI-RADS2,3 cases, considering the patient's condition, seems to lead to the diagnosis of a significant number of cancer cases.
Keywords: Biopsy, Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, Neoplasms, Prostate
Full-Text [PDF 367 kb]   (181 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Applicable | Subject: medicine, paraclinic
Received: 2021/11/5 | Accepted: 2022/03/30 | Published: 2022/05/30
1. Miller KD, Siegel RL, Lin CC, Mariotto AB, Kramer JL, Rowland JH, et al. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin 2016; 66(1): 271-89.
2. Almasi Z, Mohammadian-Hafshejani A, Salehiniya H. Incidence, mortality, and epidemiological aspects of cancers in Iran; differences with the world data. J BUON 2016; 21(4): 994-1004.
3. Hassanipour S, Fathalipour M, Salehiniya H. The incidence of prostate cancer in Iran: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prostate Int 2018; 6(2): 41-45.
4. Benson MC, Whang IS, Olsson CA, McMahon DJ, Cooner WH. The use of prostate specific antigen density to enhance the predictive value of intermediate levels of serum prostate specific antigen. J Urol 1992; 147(3 Pt 2): 817-21.
5. Pokorny M, Van de Ven W, Barentsz J, Thompson L. Reply to Yaalini Shanmugabavan, Stephanie Guillaumier and Hashim U. Ahmed's letter to the editor re: Morgan R. Pokorny, Maarten de Rooij, Earl Duncan, 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 2015; 67(3): e54-5.
6. Tan TW, Png KS, Lee CH, Yuwono A, Yeow Y, Chong KT, et al. MRI Fusion-Targeted Transrectal Prostate Biopsy and the Role of Prostate-Specific Antigen Density and Prostate Health Index for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Southeast Asian Men. J Endourol 2017; 31(11): 1111-6.
7. Thompson J, Lawrentschuk N, Frydenberg M, Thompson L, Stricker P; USANZ. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. BJU Int 2013; 112 Suppl 2: 6-20.
8. Liddell H, Jyoti R, Haxhimolla HZ. mp-MRI Prostate Characterised PIRADS 3 Lesions are Associated with a Low Risk of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer - A Retrospective Review of 92 Biopsied PIRADS 3 Lesions. Curr Urol 2015; 8(2): 96-100.
9. Sathianathen NJ, Omer A, Harriss E, Davies L, Kasivisvanathan V, Punwani S, et al. Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Era: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2020; 78(3): 402-14.
10. Ghane Z, Faeghi F, Ghafoori M, Payandeh A. Multiparametric MRI for the Diagnosis of Tumor Type in Patients Suspicious of Inner Gland Prostate Cancer. Urol J 2019; 16(6): 552-7.
11. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 2016; 69(1): 16-40.
12. Filson CP, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, Huang J, Lieu P, Dorey FJ, et al. Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: The role of systematic and targeted biopsies. Cancer 2016; 122(6): 884-92.
13. Costa MJ, Delingette H, Novellas S, Ayache N. Automatic segmentation of bladder and prostate using coupled 3D deformable models. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 2007;10(Pt 1):252-60.
14. Schoots IG. MRI in early prostate cancer detection: how to manage indeterminate or equivocal PI-RADS 3 lesions? Transl Androl Urol 2018; 7(1): 70-82.
15. Borkowetz A, Platzek I, Toma M, Renner T, Herout R, Baunacke M, et al. Evaluation of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Classification in the Prediction of Tumor Aggressiveness in Targeted Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound-Fusion Biopsy. Urol Int 2017; 99(2): 177-85.
16. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018; 378(19): 1767-77.
17. Cash H, Maxeiner A, Stephan C, Fischer T, Durmus T, Holzmann J, et al. The detection of significant prostate cancer is correlated with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) in MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. World J Urol 2016; 34(4): 525-32.
18. Benelli A, Vaccaro C, Guzzo S, Nedbal C, Varca V, Gregori A. The role of MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Ther Adv Urol 2020; 12: 1756287220916613.
19. Hassanipour-Azgomi S, Mohammadian-Hafshejani A, Ghoncheh M, Towhidi F, Jamehshorani S, Salehiniya H. Incidence and mortality of prostate cancer and their relationship with the Human Development Index worldwide. Prostate Int 2016; 4(3): 118-24.
20. Pakzad R, Rafiemanesh H, Ghoncheh M, Sarmad A, Salehiniya H, Hosseini S, et al. Prostate Cancer in Iran: Trends in Incidence and Morphological and Epidemiological Characteristics. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2016; 17(2): 839-43.
21. Liu T, Mendes DE, Berkman CE. Functional prostate-specific membrane antigen is enriched in exosomes from prostate cancer cells. Int J Oncol 2014; 44(3): 918-22.
22. Porcaro AB, Tafuri A, Sebben M, Novella G, Processali T, Pirozzi M, et al. Elevated prostate volume index and prostatic chronic inflammation reduce the number of positive cores at first prostate biopsy set: results in 945 consecutive patients. Int Braz J Urol 2020; 46(4): 545-56.
23. Yilmaz H, Ustuner M, Ciftci S, Yavuz U, Ozkan TA, et al. Prostate volume predicts high grade prostate cancer both in digital rectal examination negative (ct1c) and positive (≥ct2) patients. Int Braz J Urol 2014; 40(5): 613-9.

XML   Persian Abstract   Print

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 26, Issue 2 (Bimonthly 2022) Back to browse issues page