A novel technique using three-dimensionally documented biopsy mapping allows precise re-visiting of prostate cancer foci with serial surveillance of cell cycle progression gene panel

• Published in: The Prostate Vol. 75; no. 8; pp. 863 - 871
• Main Authors: Ukimura, Osamu, Gross, Mitchell E, de Castro Abreu, Andre Luis, Azhar, Raed A., Matsugasumi, Toru, Ushijima, So, Kanazawa, Motohiro, Aron, Manju, Gill, Inderbir S.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.06.2015; Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
• Subjects: active surveillance; biopsy; Biopsy, Needle - methods; Biopsy, Needle - standards; Cell Cycle; Disease Progression; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Imaging, Three-Dimensional - methods; Imaging, Three-Dimensional - standards; Male; prostate neoplasms; Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnosis; three-dimensional; ultrasound; biopsy; three-dimensional; prostate neoplasms; active surveillance; ultrasound
• ISSN: 0270-4137; 1097-0045; 1097-0045
• DOI: 10.1002/pros.22969

Background Conventional systematic biopsy has the shortcoming of sampling error and reveals “no evidence of cancer” with a rate of >50% on active surveillance (AS). The objective of this study is to report our initial experience of applying a 3D‐documented biopsy‐mapping technology to precisely re‐visit geographically documented low‐risk prostate cancer and to perform serial analysis of cell‐cycle‐progression (CCP) gene‐panel. Methods Over a period of 40 months (1/2010–4/2013), the 3D‐biopsy‐mapping technique, in which the spatial location of biopsy‐trajectory was digitally recorded (Koelis), was carried out. A pair of diagnostic (1st‐look) and surveillance (2nd‐look) biopsy were performed per subject (n = 25), with median interval of 12 months. The documented biopsy‐trajectory was used as a target to guide the re‐visiting biopsy from the documented cancer focus, as well as the targeted field‐biopsy from the un‐sampled prostatic field adjacent to negative diagnostic biopsies. The accuracy of re‐visiting biopsy and biopsy‐derived CCP signatures were evaluated in the pair of the serial biopsy‐cores. Results The 1st‐look‐biopsy revealed a total of 43 cancer lesions (1.7 per patient). The accuracy of re‐visiting cancer was 86% (37/43) per lesion, 76% (65/86) per core, and 80% (20/25) per patient. This technology also provided an opportunity for 3D‐targeted field‐biopsy in order to potentially minimize sampling errors. The CCP gene‐panel of the 1st‐look (−0.59) versus 2nd‐look (−0.37) samples had no significant difference (P = 0.4); which suggested consistency in the molecular signature of the known cancer foci during the short‐time interval of median 12 months. Any change in CCP of the same cancer foci would be likely due to change in sampling location from the less to more significant portion in the cancer foci rather than true molecular progression. The study limitations include a small number of the patients. Conclusion The 3D‐documented biopsy‐mapping technology achieved an encouraging re‐sampling accuracy of 86% from the known prostate cancer foci, allowing the serial analysis of biopsy‐derived CCP signatures. Prostate 75:863–871, 2015. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.