대한영상의학회지 (Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology)

  • 제84권6호
  • /
  • Pages.1220-1232
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 1738-2637(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2951-0805(eISSN)
대한영상의학회 (The Korean Society of Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

영상의학과 의사의 시각에서 본 자기공명영상 기반 전립선 표적 생검

MR-Guided Targeted Prostate Biopsy from Radiologists' Perspective

  • 김소연 (울산대학교 의과대학 서울아산병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 박계진 (울산대학교 의과대학 서울아산병원 영상의학과)
  • So-Yeon Kim (Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center) ;
  • Kye Jin Park (Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center)
  • 투고 : 2023.08.04
  • 심사 : 2023.10.02
  • 발행 : 2023.11.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

전립선암의 진단은 전립선을 10-12구역으로 나눠서 무작위로 조직을 얻는 체계적 생검 방식이 표준적으로 사용되어 왔다. 그러나 종괴의 위치나 유무와 상관없이 조직의 획득이 이루어지기 때문에 일부 전립선암을 놓치거나 임상적으로 중요하지 않은 암을 과도하게 발견한다는 점에서 비판을 받고 있다. 이를 보완하기 위해 자기공명영상 기반 전립선 표적 생검이 제안되었으며 이는 자기공명영상에서 의심 병변을 발견 후 이를 토대로 초음파 유도 혹은 MRI 유도하에 표적 생검을 하는 방식이다. 본 종설에서는 자기공명영상 기반 표적 생검의 방식에 대해서 살펴보고 최근 전립선암 진단에 있어서의 가이드라인과 최근 동향에 대해 다루고자 한다.

The prostate cancer diagnosis has traditionally been based on a systematic biopsy method in which tissue samples are randomly obtained from the prostate 10-12 sites. However, there are concerns as the method can fail to diagnose all prostate cancers or lead to over-detection of clinically insignificant cancers. MRI-guided prostate targeted biopsy has been proposed to address these shortcomings. This method involves identifying suspicious lesions using MRI and performing targeted biopsies under ultrasound or MRI guidance. We review the methods of MRI-based targeted biopsy and discuss recent guidelines and trends in prostate cancer diagnosis.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency. Performance analysis of prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer diagnosis, 2020. Available at. https://www.neca.re.kr/tech_report_download.do?seq=77&key=2&cms_menu_seq=216. Published May 31, 2021. Accessed August 4, 2023
  2. Sugano D, Sidana A, Calio B, Cobb K, Turkbey B, Pinto PA. MRI-targeted biopsy: is systematic biopsy obsolete? Can J Urol 2017;24:8876-8882
  3. Seetharam Bhat KR, Samavedi S, Moschovas MC, Onol FF, Roof S, Rogers T, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-guided prostate biopsy-A review of literature. Asian J Urol 2021;8:105-116 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2020.07.001
  4. Matlaga BR, Eskew LA, McCullough DL. Prostate biopsy: indications and technique. J Urol 2003;169:12-19 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64024-4
  5. Costa DN, Pedrosa I, Donato F Jr, Roehrborn CG, Rofsky NM. MR imaging-transrectal US fusion for targeted prostate biopsies: implications for diagnosis and clinical management. Radiographics 2015;35:696-708 https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2015140058
  6. Taira AV, Merrick GS, Galbreath RW, Andreini H, Taubenslag W, Curtis R, et al. Performance of transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy in detecting prostate cancer in the initial and repeat biopsy setting. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2010;13:71-77 https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2009.42
  7. King CR, McNeal JE, Gill H, Presti JC Jr. Extended prostate biopsy scheme improves reliability of Gleason grading: implications for radiotherapy patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;59:386-391 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2003.10.014
  8. Pinthus JH, Witkos M, Fleshner NE, Sweet J, Evans A, Jewett MA, et al. Prostate cancers scored as Gleason 6 on prostate biopsy are frequently Gleason 7 tumors at radical prostatectomy: implication on outcome. J Urol 2006;176:979-984; discussion 984 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.04.102
  9. Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Eldefrawy A, Acosta K, Kava B, Manoharan M. Careful selection and close monitoring of low-risk prostate cancer patients on active surveillance minimizes the need for treatment. Eur Urol 2010;58:831-835 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.08.027
  10. Carlsson S, Jaderling F, Wallerstedt A, Nyberg T, Stranne J, Thorsteinsdottir T, et al. Oncological and functional outcomes 1 year after radical prostatectomy for very-low-risk prostate cancer: results from the prospective LAPPRO trial. BJU Int 2016;118:205-212 https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13444
  11. Presti JC. Prostate biopsy: current status and limitations. Rev Urol 2007;9:93-98
  12. Verma S, Choyke PL, Eberhardt SC, Oto A, Tempany CM, Turkbey B, et al. The current state of MR imaging-targeted biopsy techniques for detection of prostate cancer. Radiology 2017;285:343-356 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161684
  13. Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH. 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;72:177-188 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.01.042
  14. 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;378:1767-1777 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
  15. Eklund M, Jaderling F, Discacciati A, Bergman M, Annerstedt M, Aly M, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy in prostate cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2021;385:908-920 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2100852
  16. Wegelin O, Exterkate L, van der Leest M, Kummer JA, Vreuls W, de Bruin PC, et al. The FUTURE trial: a multicenter randomised controlled trial on target biopsy techniques based on magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol 2019;75:582-590 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.040
  17. Chang SD, Ghai S, Kim CK, Oto A, Giganti F, Moore CM. MRI targeted prostate biopsy techniques: AJR expert panel narrative review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021;217:1263-1281 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.21.26154
  18. Sciarra A, Panebianco V, Ciccariello M, Salciccia S, Cattarino S, Lisi D, et al. Value of magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging for detecting prostate cancer foci in men with prior negative biopsy. Clin Cancer Res 2010;16:1875-1883 https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-2195
  19. Park BK, Park JW, Park SY, Kim CK, Lee HM, Jeon SS, et al. Prospective evaluation of 3-T MRI performed before initial transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with high prostate-specific antigen and no previous biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;197:W876-W881 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.6829
  20. Lee SH, Chung MS, Kim JH, Oh YT, Rha KH, Chung BH. Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in men with previously negative prostate biopsy results. J Endourol 2012;26:787-791 https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2011.0393
  21. Marks L, Young S, Natarajan S. MRI-ultrasound fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsy. Curr Opin Urol 2013;23:43-50 https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0b013e32835ad3ee
  22. Das CJ, Netaji A, Razik A, Verma S. MRI-targeted prostate biopsy: what radiologists should know. Korean J Radiol 2020;21:1087-1094 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2019.0817
  23. Hu Y, Ahmed HU, Taylor Z, Allen C, Emberton M, Hawkes D, et al. MR to ultrasound registration for imageguided prostate interventions. Med Image Anal 2012;16:687-703 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2010.11.003
  24. Pokorny M, Kua B, Esler R, Yaxley J, Samaratunga H, Dunglison N, et al. MRI-guided in-bore biopsy for prostate cancer: what does the evidence say? A case series of 554 patients and a review of the current literature. World J Urol 2019;37:1263-1279 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2497-y
  25. Woodrum DA, Gorny KR, Greenwood B, Mynderse LA. MRI-guided prostate biopsy of native and recurrent prostate cancer. Semin Intervent Radiol 2016;33:196-205 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1586151
  26. Grummet J, Pepdjonovic L, Huang S, Anderson E, Hadaschik B. Transperineal vs. transrectal biopsy in MRI targeting. Transl Androl Urol 2017;6:368-375 https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2017.03.58
  27. Cicione A, De Nunzio C, Manno S, Damiano R, Posti A, Lima E, et al. An update on prostate biopsy in the era of magnetic resonance imaging. Minerva Urol Nefrol 2018;70:264-274 https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.18.03048-5
  28. Borghesi M, Ahmed H, Nam R, Schaeffer E, Schiavina R, Taneja S, et al. Complications after systematic, random, and image-guided prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 2017;71:353-365 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.004
  29. Liss MA, Ehdaie B, Loeb S, Meng MV, Raman JD, Spears V, et al. An update of the American Urological Association white paper on the prevention and treatment of the more common complications related to prostate biopsy. J Urol 2017;198:329-334 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.01.103
  30. Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y, Liu Y, Law C, Klotz LH, et al. Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 2013;189(1 Suppl):S12-S17; discussion S17-S18 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.11.015
  31. Anastasiadis E, van der Meulen J, Emberton M. Hospital admissions after transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate in men diagnosed with prostate cancer: a database analysis in England. Int J Urol 2015;22:181-186 https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.12634
  32. U.S. FDA. FDA drug safety communication: FDA updates warnings for oral and injectable fluoroquinolone antibiotics due to disabling side effects. Available at. www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fdadrug-safety-communication-fda-updates-warnings-oral-and-injectable-fluoroquinolone-antibiotics. Published July 26, 2016. Accessed August 4, 2023
  33. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2019. Available at. https://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/pdf/threats-report/2019-ar-threats-report-508.pdf. Published 2019. Accessed August 4, 2023
  34. Gunzel K, Magheli A, Baco E, Cash H, Heinrich S, Neubert H, et al. Infection rate and complications after 621 transperineal MRI-TRUS fusion biopsies in local anesthesia without standard antibiotic prophylaxis. World J Urol 2021;39:3861-3866 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03699-1
  35. Davis P, Paul E, Grummet J. Current practice of prostate biopsy in Australia and New Zealand: a survey. Urol Ann 2015;7:315-319 https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-7796.152017
  36. Roberts MJ, Bennett HY, Harris PN, Holmes M, Grummet J, Naber K, et al. Prostate biopsy-related infection: a systematic review of risk factors, prevention strategies, and management approaches. Urology 2017;104:11-21 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2016.12.011
  37. Pilatz A, Veeratterapillay R, Koves B, Cai T, Bartoletti R, Wagenlehner F, et al. Update on strategies to reduce infectious complications after prostate biopsy. Eur Urol Focus 2019;5:20-28 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.11.009
  38. Meyer AR, Mamawala M, Winoker JS, Landis P, Epstein JI, Macura KJ, et al. Transperineal prostate biopsy improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer among men on active surveillance. J Urol 2021;205:1069-1074 https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001523
  39. Drost FH, Osses DF, Nieboer D, Steyerberg EW, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ, et al. Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019;4:CD012663
  40. Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, Hooft L, Bosch JLHR, Reitsma HB, Barentsz JO, 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;71:517-531 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.07.041
  41. Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MG. Magnetic resonance imagingtargeted 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;68:438-450 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.037
  42. Rouviere O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, Claudon M, Roy C, Mege-Lechevallier F, et al. Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 2019;20:100-109 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2
  43. Ahdoot M, Wilbur AR, Reese SE, Lebastchi AH, Mehralivand S, Gomella PT, et al. MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2020;382:917-928 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1910038
  44. Wei JT, Barocas D, Carlsson S, Coakley F, Eggener S, Etzioni R, et al. Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA/SUO guideline part II: considerations for a prostate biopsy. J Urol 2023;210:54-63 https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003492
  45. European Association of Urology. EAU guidelines: prostate cancer. Available at. https://uroweb.org/guidelines/prostate-cancer. Published 2023. Accessed August 4, 2023
  46. Park KJ, Choi SH, Lee JS, Kim JK, Kim MH, Jeong IG. Risk stratification of prostate cancer according to PIRADS® version 2 categories: meta-analysis for prospective studies. J Urol 2020;204:1141-1149 https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001306
  47. Park KJ, Choi SH, Lee JS, Kim JK, Kim MH. Interreader agreement with prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 for prostate cancer detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol 2020;204:661-670 https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001200
  48. Giganti F, Allen C, Emberton M, Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V. Prostate imaging quality (PI-QUAL): a new quality control scoring system for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate from the PRECISION trial. Eur Urol Oncol 2020;3:615-619 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2020.06.007