3.0-T MR-guided transgluteal in-bore-targeted prostate biopsy under local anesthesia in patients without rectal access: a single-institute experience and review of literature.

PURPOSE: To describe the technique and evaluate the performance of MRI-guided transgluteal in-bore-targeted biopsy of the prostate gland under local anesthesia in patients without rectal access. METHODS: Ten men (mean age, 69 (range 57-86) years) without rectal access underwent 13 MRI-guided transgluteal in-bore-targeted biopsy of the prostate gland under local anesthesia. All patients underwent mp-MRI at our institute prior to biopsy. Three patients had prior US-guided transperineal biopsy which was unsuccessful in one, negative in one, and yielded GG1 (GS6) PCa in one. Procedure time, complications, histopathology result, and subsequent management were recorded. RESULTS: Median interval between rectal surgery and presentation with elevated PSA was 12.5 years (interquartile range (IQR) 25-75, 8-36.5 years). Mean PSA was 11.9 (range, 4.8 -59.0) ng/ml and PSA density was 0.49 (0.05 -3.2) ng/ml/ml. Distribution of PI-RADS v2.0/2.1 scores of the targeted lesions were PI-RADS 5-3; PI-RADS 4-6; and PI-RADS 3-1. Mean lesion size was 1.5 cm (range, 1.0-3.6 cm). Median interval between MRI and biopsy was 5.5 months (IQR 25-75, 1.5-9 months). Mean procedure time was 47.4 min (range, 29-80 min) and the number of cores varied between 3 and 5. Of the 13 biopsies, 4 yielded clinically significant prostate cancer (csPca), with a Gleason score ≥ 7, 1 yielded insignificant prostate cancer (Gleason score = 6), 7 yielded benign prostatic tissue, and one was technically unsuccessful. 3/13 biopsies were repeat biopsies which detected csPCa in 2 out of the 3 patients. None of the patients had biopsy-related complication. Biopsy result changed management to radiation therapy with ADT in 2 patients with the rest on active surveillance. CONCLUSION: MRI-guided transgluteal in-bore-targeted biopsy of the prostate gland under local anesthesia is feasible in patients without rectal access.

Comparison of hybrid FDG PET/MRI compared with PET/CT in colorectal cancer staging and restaging: a pilot study.

PURPOSE: We report our initial clinical experience from a pilot study to compare the diagnostic accuracy of hybrid PET/MRI with PET/CT in colorectal cancer and discuss potential PET/MRI workflow solutions for colorectal cancer. METHODS: Patients underwent both FDG PET/CT and PET/MRI (Ingenuity TF PET/MRI, Philips Healthcare) for rectal cancer staging or colorectal cancer restaging. The PET acquisition of PET/MRI was similar to that of PET/CT whereas the MRI protocol was selected individually based on the patient's medical history. One nuclear medicine physician reviewed the PET/CT studies and one radiologist reviewed the PET/MRI studies independently. The diagnostic accuracy of each modality was determined in consensus, using available medical records as a reference. RESULTS: Of the 12 patients enrolled, two were for initial staging and ten for restaging. The median scan delay between the two modalities was 60 min. The initial imaging was PET/CT in nine patients and PET/MRI in three patients. When PET/CT was performed first, the SUV values of the 16 FDG avid lesions were greater at PET/MRI than at PET/CT. In contrast, when PET/MRI was performed first, the SUV values of the seven FDG avid lesions were greater at PET/CT than at PET/MRI. PET/MRI provided more detailed T staging than PET/CT. On a per-patient basis, with both patient groups combined for the evaluation of N and M staging/restaging, the true positive rate was 5/7 (71%) for PET/CT and 6/7 (86%) for PET/MRI, and true negative rate was 5/5 (100%) for both modalities. On a per-lesion basis, PET/CT identified 26 of 29 (90%) tumor lesions that were correctly detected by PET/MRI. Our proposed workflow allows for comprehensive cancer staging including integrated local and whole-body assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Our initial experience shows a high diagnostic accuracy of PET/MRI in T staging of rectal cancer compared with PET/CT. In addition, PET/MRI shows at least comparable accuracy in N and M staging as well as restaging to PET/CT. However, the small sample size limits the generalizability of the results. It is expected that PET/MRI would yield higher diagnostic accuracy than PET/CT considering the high soft tissue contrast provided by MRI compared with CT, but larger studies are necessary to fully assess the benefit of PET/MRI in colorectal cancer.