БИОПСИЯ ПРЕДСТАТЕЛЬНОЙ ЖЕЛЕЗЫ ПОД КОНТРОЛЕМ МАГНИТНО-РЕЗОНАНСНОЙ ТОМОГРАФИИ

Рак предстательной железы (РПЖ) представляет собой одну из важнейших проблем в современной онкологии. По статистическим данным РПЖ занимает второе место в структуре онкологической заболеваемости в Российской Федерации и развитых странах, и распространённость его в последнее десятилетие прогрессивно растёт. Необходимость ранней диагностики и максимально точной морфологической верификации диагноза в сложных клинических случаях (неудобное расположение опухоли для выполнения стандартной трансректальной биопсии, рубцовые изменения в железе, сочетающиеся с простатитом и кровоизлияниями, пороговые значения простат-специфического антигена с неясной динамикой его удвоения в единицу времени, подозрение на биохимический рецидив или клиническое прогрессирование опухолевого процесса после специального лечения) приводит к пересмотру диагностических алгоритмов и внедрению в клиническую практику новых высокотехнологичных методов инвазивной диагностики. В данной работе представлен первый в отечественной практике анализ литературных данных, посвящённых одному из новых методов верификации рака предстательной железы – трансректальной биопсии предстательной железы под контролем магнитно-резонансной томографии (МРТ). Авторы провели поиск в базах MEDLINE и Pubmed за период 1995–2015 гг. Практический интерес для специалистов представляет описание показаний к МР-направленной биопсии, разработан- ных K. Chan Kyo (2015 г.) и адаптированных авторами этой публикации.

1. Farwell W.R., Linder J.A., Jha A.K. Trends in prostate-specific antigen testing from 1995 through 2004. Arch. Intern. Med. 2007; 167: 2497–502.

2. Esfahani M., Ataei N., Panjehpour M. Biomarkers for evaluation of prostate cancer prognosis. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2015; 16 (7): 2601–11.

3. Moyer V.A. Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 2012; 157: 120–34.

4. Huang Y.Q., Sun T., Zhong W.D., Wu C.L. Clinical performance of serum [-2]proPSA derivatives, %p2PSA and PHI, in the detection and management of prostate cancer. Am. J. Clin. Exp. Urol. 2014; 2 (4): 343–50.

5. Carlsson S., Vickers A. Spotlight on prostate cancer: the latest evidence and current controversies. BMC Med. 2015; 13: 60.

6. Brown A.M., Elbuluk O., Mertan F., Sankineni S., Margolis D.J., Wood B.J. et al. Recent advances in image-guided targeted prostate biopsy. Abdom. Imaging. 2015; 40 (6): 1788–99.

7. Babaian R.J., Toi A., Kamoi K., Troncoso P., Sweet J., Evans R. et al. A comparative analysis of sextant and an extended 11-core multisite directed biopsy strategy. J. Urol. 2000; 163: 152–7.

8. White S., Hricak H., Forstner R. et al. Prostate cancer: effect of postbiopsy hemorrhage on interpretation of MR images. Radiology. 1995; 195: 385–90.

9. Ikonen S., Kivisaari L., Tervahartiala P., Vehmas T., Taari K., Rannikko S. Prostatic MR imaging: accuracy in differentiating cancer from other prostatic disorders. Acta Radiol. 2001; 42: 348–54.

10. Pedler K., Kitzing Y.X., Varol C., Arianayagam M. The current status of MRI in prostate cancer. Aust. Fam. Physician. 2015; 44 (4): 225–30.

11. Pasoglou V., Michoux N., Peeters F., Larbi A., Tombal B., Selleslagh T. et al. Whole-body 3D T1-weighted MR imaging in patients with prostate cancer: Feasibility and evaluation in screening for metastatic disease. Radiology. 2015; 275 (1): 155–66.

12. Linton K.D., Catto J.W. Wholebody magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer metastases: a new gold standard of detection, but does it help us and at what cost? Eur. Urol. 2012; 62 (1): 76–7.

13. Ghai S., Trachtenberg J. In-bore MRI interventions: current status and future applications. Curr. Opin. Urol. 2015; 25 (3): 205–11.

14. Perrotti M., Han K.R., Epstein R.E. et al. Prospective evaluation of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging to detect tumor foci in men with prior negative prostatic biopsy: a pilot study. J. Urol. 1999; 162: 1314–7.

15. D’Amico A.V., Tempany C.M., Cormack R. et al. Transperineal magnetic resonance image guided prostate biopsy. J. Urol. 2000; 164: 385–7.

16. Susil R.C., Krieger A., Derbyshire J.A. et al. System for MR image–guided prostate interventions: canine study. Radiology. 2003; 228: 886–94.

17. Beyersdorff D., Winkel A., Hamm B., Lenk S., Loening S.A., Taupitz M. MR imaging-guided prostate biopsy with a closed MR unit at 1.5 T: initial results. Radiology. 2005; 234: 576–81.

18. Chan Kyo K. Magnetic resonance imaging-guided prostate biopsy: present and future. Korean J. Radiol. 2015; 16 (1): 90–8.

19. Puech P., Rouvie`re O., Renard-Penna R., Villers A., Devos P., Colombel M. et al. Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy— prospective multicenter study. Radiology. 2013; 268: 461–9.

20. Haffner J., Lemaitre L., Puech P., Haber G.P., Leroy X., Jones J.S. et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. BJU Int. 2011; 108 (8 Pt 2): E171–8.

21. Cool D.W., Zhang X., Romagnoli C., Izawa J.I., Romano W.M., Fenster A. Evaluation of MRI-TRUS fusion versus cognitive registration accuracy for MRI-targeted, TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2015; 204 (1): 83–91.

22. Kim E.H., Vemana G., Johnson M.H., Vetter J.M., Rensing A.J., Strother M.C. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted vs. conventional transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: Single-institution, matched cohort comparison. Urol. Oncol. 2015; 33 (3): 109.e1–6.

23. Garcia Bennett J., Conejero Olesti, Hurtado Salom, Rebenaque E., Parada, Serrano Alcalá, Abreu De Con J. Usefulness of cognitive targeting in multiparametric MRIguided biopsy to diagnose the dominant lesion in prostate cancer. Radiologia. 2014 Nov 22. pii: S0033-8338(14)00166-0.

24. Sciarra A., Panebianco V., Ciccariello M., Salciccia S., Cattarino S. 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: 1875–83.

25. Labanaris A.P., Engelhard K., Zugor V., Nützel R., Kühn R. Prostate cancer detection using an extended prostate biopsy schema in combination with additional targeted cores from suspicious images in conventional and functional endorectal magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate. Prostate Cancer Prostatic. Dis. 2010; 13: 65–70.

26. De Gorski A., Roupre^t M., Peyronnet B., Le Cossec C., Granger B., Comperat E. 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 Mar 14. pii: S0022-5347(15)03317-0.

27. Ukimura O., Marien A., Palmer S., Villers A., Aron M., de Castro Abreu A.L. et al. Trans-rectal ultrasound visibility of prostate lesions identified by magnetic resonance imaging increases accuracy of image-fusion targeted biopsies. World J. Urol. 2015; 33 (11): 1669–76.

28. Borkowetz A., Platzek .I, Toma M., Laniado M., Baretton G., Froehner M. et al. Comparison of systematic transrectal biopsy to transperineal magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2014 Dec 18. DOI: 10.1111/bju.13023.

29. Da Rosa M.R., Milot L., Sugar L., Vesprini D., Chung H., Loblaw A. et al. A prospective comparison of MRI-US fused targeted biopsy versus systematic ultrasound-guided biopsy for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in patients on active surveillance. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging. 2015; 41 (1): 220–5.

30. Schimmöller L., Quentin M., Arsov C., Hiester A., Kröpil P., Rabenalt R. et al. Predictive power of the ESUR scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis verified with targeted MR-guided in-bore biopsy. Eur. J. Radiol. 2014; 83 (12): 2103–8.

31. Zamecnik P., Schouten M.G., Krafft A.J., Maier F., Schlemmer H.P., Barentsz J.O. et al. Automated real-time needle-guide tracking for fast 3-T MR-guided transrectal prostate biopsy: a feasibility study. Radiology. 2014; 273 (3): 879–86.

32. Nicholson A.J., Pettersson D.R., Korngold E.K., Foster B.R., Hung A.Y., Amling C.L., Coakley F.V. Direct MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate: use of post-biopsy needle track imaging to confirm targeting. Abdom. Imaging. 2015; 40 (7): 2517–22.

33. Kaufmann S., Kruck S., Kramer U., Gatidis S., Stenzl A., Roethke M. et al. Direct comparison of targeted MRI-guided biopsy with systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in patients with previous negative prostate biopsies. Urol. Int. 2015; 94 (3): 319–25.

34. Rastinehad A.R., Baccala A.A. Jr, Chung P.H., Proano J.M., Kruecker J., Xu S. et al. D’Amico risk stratification correlates with degree of suspicion of prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J. Urol. 2011; 185: 815–20.

35. Sonn G.A., Natarajan S., Margolis D.J., MacAiran M., Lieu P., Huang J. et al. Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion device. J. Urol. 2013; 189: 86–91.

36. Pinto P.A., Chung P.H., Rastinehad A.R., Baccala A.A. Jr, Kruecker J., Benjamin C.J. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J. Urol. 2011; 186: 1281–5.

37. Testa C., Schiavina R., Lodi R., Salizzoni E., Tonon C., D’Errico A. et al. Accuracy of MRI/MRSIbased transrectal ultrasound biopsy in peripheral and transition zones of the prostate gland in patients with prior negative biopsy. NMR Biomed. 2010; 23: 1017–26.

38. Hambrock T., Somford D.M., Hoeks C., Bouwense S.A., Huisman H., Yakar D. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. J. Urol. 2010; 183: 520–7.

39. Hoeks C.M., Schouten M.G., Bomers J.G., Hoogendoorn S.P., Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C.A., Hambrock T. et al. Three-Tesla magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy in men with increased prostate-specific antigen and repeated, negative, random, systematic, transrectal ultrasound biopsies: detection of clinically significant prostate cancers. Eur. Urol. 2012; 62: 902–9.

40. Franiel T., Stephan C., Erbersdobler A., Dietz E., Maxeiner A., Hell N. et al. Areas suspicious for prostate cancer: MR-guided biopsy in patients with at least one transrectal US-guided biopsy with a negative finding—multiparametric MR imaging for detection and biopsy planning. Radiology. 2011; 259: 162–72.

41. Ouzzane A., Puech P., Lemaitre L., Leroy X., Nevoux P., Betrouni N. et al. Combined multiparametric MRI and targeted biopsies improve anterior prostate cancer detection, staging, and grading. Urology. 2011; 78: 1356–62.

42. Rouse P., Shaw G., Ahmed H.U., Freeman A., Allen C., Emberton M. Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging to rule-in and ruleout clinically important prostate cancer in men at risk: a cohort study. Urol. Int. 2011; 87: 49–53.

43. Hambrock T., Hoeks C., Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C., Scheenen T., Fütterer J., Bouwense S. et al. Prospective assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using 3-T diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies versus a systematic 10-core transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy cohort. Eur. Urol. 2012; 61: 177–84.

44. Pondman K.M., Fütterer J.J., ten Haken B., Schultze Kool L.J., Witjes J.A., Hambrock T. et al. MR-guided biopsy of the prostate: an overview of techniques and a systematic review. Eur. Urol. 2008; 54: 517–27.

45. Schoots I.G., Roobol M.J., Nieboer D., Bangma C.H., Steyerberg E.W., Hunink M.G. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted 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. 2014 Dec 2. pii: S0302- 2838(14)01220-2.

46. Somford D.M., Hoeks C.M., Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C.A., Hambrock T., Fütterer J.J., Witjes J.A. et al. Evaluation of diffusionweighted MR imaging at inclusion in an active surveillance protocol for low-risk prostate cancer. Invest. Radiol. 2013; 48: 152–7.

47. Vargas H.A., Wassberg C., Akin O., Hricak H. MR imaging of treated prostate cancer. Radiology. 2012; 262: 26–42.

48. Rud E., Baco E., Lien D., Klotz D., Eggesbo/ H.B. Detection of radiorecurrent prostate cancer using diffusion-weighted imaging and targeted biopsies. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2014; 202: W241–6.