Managing Discordant Findings Between Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-directed Prostate Biopsy-The Key Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-directed Transperineal Biopsy.

BACKGROUND: Discordant findings between multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and transrectal image-guided biopsies of the prostate (TRUS-P) may result in inadequate risk stratification of localized prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To assess transperineal image-guided biopsies of the index target (TPER-IT) in terms of disease reclassification and treatment recommendations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cases referred for suspicion or treatment of localized prostate cancer were reviewed in a multidisciplinary setting, and discordance was characterized into three scenarios: type I-negative biopsies or International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 1 cancer in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) ≥4 index target (IT); type II-negative biopsies or ISUP grade 1 cancer in anterior IT; and type III-<3 mm stretch of cancer in PI-RADS ≥3 IT. Discordant findings were characterized in 132/558 (23.7%) patients after TRUS-P. Of these patients, 102 received reassessment TPER-IT. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary objective was to report changes in treatment recommendations after TPER-IT. Therefore, cores obtained by primary TRUS-P and TPER-IT were analyzed in terms of cancer detection, ISUP grade, and Cambridge Prognostic Group classification using descriptive statistics. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: TPER-IT biopsies that consisted of fewer cores than the initial TRUS-P (seven vs 14, p < 0.0001) resulted in more cancer tissue materials for analysis (56 vs 42.5 mm, p = 0.0003). As a result, 40% of patients initially considered for follow-up (12/30) and 49% for active surveillance (30/61) were reassigned after TPER-IT to surgery or intensity-modulated radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Nonconcordance between pathology and imaging was observed in a significant proportion of patients receiving TRUS-P. TPER-IT better informed the presence and grade of cancer, resulting in a significant impact on treatment recommendations. A multidisciplinary review of mpMRI and TRUS-P findings and reassessment TPER-IT in type I-II discordances is recommended. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, patients with suspicious imaging of the prostate, but no or well-differentiated cancer on transrectal image-guided -biopsies, were offered transperineal image-guided biopsies for reassessment. We found that a large share of these had a more aggressive cancer than initially suspected. We conclude that discordant results warrant reassessment transperineal image-guided biopsies as these may impact disease risk classification and treatment recommendations.

Migration of an abdominal mesh into a reconstructed ileal neobladder, diagnosis and management: A case report.

Migration of an abdominal mesh is a very rare complication. Few reports have described migrations to the bowels and to the urinary bladder but none reported the migration into an ileal bladder. This case report describes an extremely rare but possible migration of abdominal mesh into the lumen of the neobladder. We present a case of a 65 year old male patient who had an abdominal mesh migration into a reconstructed ileal neobladder. The management was done over two parts with endourology laser assistance and open approach. The report shows the possible causes and ways of management of this complication.

Refining the risk-stratification of transrectal biopsy-detected prostate cancer by elastic fusion registration transperineal biopsies.

PURPOSE: To evaluate image-guided Transperineal Elastic-Registration biopsy (TPER-B) in the risk-stratification of low-intermediate risk prostate cancer detected by Transrectal-ultrasound biopsy (TRUS-B) when estimates of cancer grade and volume discorded with multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). METHODS: All patients referred for active surveillance or organ-conservative management were collegially reviewed for consistency between TRUS-B results and MRI. Image-guided TPER-B of the index target (IT) defined as the largest Prostate Imaging-Reporting Data System-v2 ≥ 3 abnormality was organized for discordant cases. Pathology reported Gleason grade, maximum cancer core length (MCCL) and total CCL (TCCL). RESULTS: Of 237 prostate cancer patients (1-4/2018), 30 were required TPER-B for risk-stratification. Eight cores were obtained [Median and IQR: 8 (6-9)] including six (IQR: 4-6) in the IT. TPER-B of the IT yielded longer MCCL [Mean and (95%CI): 6.9 (5.0-8.8) vs. 2.6 mm (1.9-3.3), p < 0.0001] and TCCL [19.7 (11.6-27.8) vs. 3.6 mm (2.6-4.5), p = 0.0002] than TRUS-B of the gland. On TPER-B cores, longer MCCL [Mean and (95%CI): 8.7 mm (6.7-10.7) vs. 4.1 mm (0.6-7.6), p = 0.002] were measured in Gleason score-7 cancers. TPER-B cores upgraded 13/30 (43.3%) patients. 14/30 (46.7%) met University College London-definition 1 and 18/30 (60.0%) definition 2, which correlate with clinically significant cancers > 0.5 mL and > 0.2 mL, respectively. 7/16 (43.8%) patients under active surveillance were re-allocated toward prostatectomy (n = 5) or radiation therapy (n = 2). In 14 patients not yet assigned, TPER-B risk-stratification spurred the selection (13/14, 92.9%) of treatments with curative intent. CONCLUSION: Image-guided TPER-B of the index target provided more cancer material for pathology. Subsequent re-evaluation of cancer volume and grade switched a majority of patients towards higher-risk groups and treatments with curative intent.