a Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China; b Department of Radiology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China
Three-dimensional printing technique assisted cognitive fusion in targeted prostate biopsy
a Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China; b Department of Radiology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China
摘要 Objective: To explore the effect of 3-dimensional (3D) printing-assisted cognitive fusion on improvement of the positive rate in prostate biopsy. Methods: From August to December 2014, 16 patients with suspected prostatic lesions detected by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were included. Targeted prostate biopsy was performed with the use of prostate 3D reconstruction modeling, computersimulated biopsy, 3D printing, and cognitive fusion biopsy. All patients had received 3.0 T multiparametric MRI before biopsy. The DICOM MRI files were imported to medical imaging processing software for 3D reconstruction modeling to generate a printable .stl file for 3D printing with use of transparent resin as raw material. We further performed a targeted 2- to 3-core biopsy at suspected lesions spotted on MRI. Results: For the 16 patients in the present study, 3D modeling with cognitive fusion-based targeted biopsy was successfully performed. For a single patient, 1-2 lesions (average: 1.1 lesions) were discovered, followed by 2-6 cores (average: 2.4 cores) added as targeted biopsy. Systematic biopsies accounted for 192 cores in total, with a positive rate of 22.4%; targeted biopsies accounted for 39 cores in total, with a positive rate of 46.2%. Among these cases, 10 patients (62.5%) were diagnosed with prostate adenocarcinoma, in which seven were discovered by both systematic and targeted biopsy, one was diagnosed by systematic biopsy only, and two were diagnosed by targeted biopsy only. For systematic biopsy, Gleason score ranged from 6 to 8 (average: 7), while that for targeted biopsy ranged from 6 to 9 (average: 7.67). Among the seven patients that were diagnosed by both systematic and targeted biopsy, three (42.8%) were reported with a higher Gleason score in targeted therapy than in systematic biopsy.
Abstract: Objective: To explore the effect of 3-dimensional (3D) printing-assisted cognitive fusion on improvement of the positive rate in prostate biopsy. Methods: From August to December 2014, 16 patients with suspected prostatic lesions detected by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were included. Targeted prostate biopsy was performed with the use of prostate 3D reconstruction modeling, computersimulated biopsy, 3D printing, and cognitive fusion biopsy. All patients had received 3.0 T multiparametric MRI before biopsy. The DICOM MRI files were imported to medical imaging processing software for 3D reconstruction modeling to generate a printable .stl file for 3D printing with use of transparent resin as raw material. We further performed a targeted 2- to 3-core biopsy at suspected lesions spotted on MRI. Results: For the 16 patients in the present study, 3D modeling with cognitive fusion-based targeted biopsy was successfully performed. For a single patient, 1-2 lesions (average: 1.1 lesions) were discovered, followed by 2-6 cores (average: 2.4 cores) added as targeted biopsy. Systematic biopsies accounted for 192 cores in total, with a positive rate of 22.4%; targeted biopsies accounted for 39 cores in total, with a positive rate of 46.2%. Among these cases, 10 patients (62.5%) were diagnosed with prostate adenocarcinoma, in which seven were discovered by both systematic and targeted biopsy, one was diagnosed by systematic biopsy only, and two were diagnosed by targeted biopsy only. For systematic biopsy, Gleason score ranged from 6 to 8 (average: 7), while that for targeted biopsy ranged from 6 to 9 (average: 7.67). Among the seven patients that were diagnosed by both systematic and targeted biopsy, three (42.8%) were reported with a higher Gleason score in targeted therapy than in systematic biopsy.
Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 1989;142:71-5.
[2]
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;13:71-7.
[3]
Moore CM, Robertson NL, Arsanious N, Middleton T, Villers A, Klotz L, et al. Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2013;63:125-40.
[4]
Puech P, Potiron E, Lemaitre L, Leroy X, Haber GP, Crouzet S, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced-magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of intraprostatic prostate cancer: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 2009;74: 1094-9.
[5]
Sonn GA, Chang E, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, Macairan M, Lieu P, et al. Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Eur Urol 2014;65: 809-15.
[6]
Hoeks CM, Schouten MG, Bomers JG, Hoogendoorn SP, Hulsbergen- van de Kaa CA, 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.
[7]
Puech P, Rouviere 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 biopsyeprospective multicenter study. Radiology 2013;268:461-9.
[8]
Delongchamps NB, Peyromaure M, Schull A, Beuvon F, Bouazza N, Flam T, et al. Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer detection: comparison of random and targeted biopsies. J Urol 2013;189:493-9.
[9]
Cousley RR, Turner MJ. Digital model planning and computerized fabrication of orthognathic surgery wafers. J Orthod 2014;41:38-45.
[10]
Rohner D, Guijarro-Martinez R, Bucher P, Hammer B. Importance of patient-specific intraoperative guides in complex maxillofacial reconstruction. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2013;41: 382-90.
[11]
Zhang Y, Ge HW, Li NC, Yu CF, Guo HF, Jin SH, et al. Evaluation of three-dimensional printing for laparoscopic partial nephrectomy of renal tumors: a preliminary report. World J Urol 2015 Apr 5 [Epub ahead of print].
Christopher Hartman, Nikhil Gupta, David Leavitt, David Hoenig, Zeph Okeke, Arthur Smith. Advances in percutaneous stone surgery[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2015, 2(1): 26
-32
.
