An Magnetic Resonance Imaging-directed Targeted-plus-perilesional Biopsy Approach for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: "Less Is More".

Background: Considering that most men benefit diagnostically from increased sampling of index lesions, limiting systematic biopsy (SBx) to the region around the index lesion could potentially minimize overdetection while maintaining the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of a hypothetical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-directed targeted-plus-perilesional biopsy approach. Design setting and participants: This single-center, retrospective analysis of prospectively generated data included all biopsy-naïve men with unilateral MRI-positive lesions (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System category ≥3), undergoing both MRI-directed targeted biopsies and SBx. Grade group 2-5 cancers were considered csPCa. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The diagnostic performance of a targeted-plus-perilesional biopsy approach was compared with that of a targeted-plus-systematic biopsy approach. The primary outcome was the detection of csPCa. Secondary outcomes included the detection of clinically insignificant prostate cancer (ciPCa) and the number of total biopsy cores. Results and limitations: A total of 235 men were included in the analysis; csPCa and ciPCa were detected, respectively, in 95 (40.4%) and 86 (36.6%) of these 235 men. A targeted-plus-perilesional biopsy approach would have detected 92/95 (96.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 91.0-99.3%) csPCa cases. At the same time, detection of systematically found ciPCa would be reduced by 11/86 (12.8%; 95% CI 6.6-21.7%). If a targeted-plus-perilesional biopsy approach would have been performed, the number of biopsy cores per patient would have been reduced significantly (a mean difference of 5.2; 95% CI 4.9-5.6, p < 0.001). Conclusions: An MRI-directed targeted-plus-perilesional biopsy approach detected almost all csPCa cases, while limiting overdiagnosis and reducing the number of biopsy cores. Prospective clinical trials are needed to substantiate the withholding of nonperilesional SBx in men with unilateral lesion(s) on MRI. Patient summary: Limiting systematic biopsies to the proximity of the suspicious area on magnetic resonance imaging helps detect an equivalent number of aggressive cancers and fewer indolent cancers. These findings may help patients and physicians choose the best biopsy approach.

[Guideline 'Diagnosis and treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm']. / Richtlijn 'Diagnostiek en behandeling van het aneurysma van de abdominale aorta'.

The evidence-based guideline 'Diagnosis and treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm' is applicable to all patients with an atherosclerotic fusiform or ruptured aneurysm of the abdominal aorta (AAA) and can be found on www.vaat-chirurgie.nl, click on Richtlijnen. An AAA with a diameter < 5.5 cm is treated conservatively and monitored by sonographic surveillance. All patients are advised secondary prevention with antiplatelet therapy, a statin, treatment of hypertension and smoking cessation. Depending on comorbidity, the indication for an operation is an AAA diameter of 5.5 cm. The anatomical characteristics of the AAA guides the choice for an open operation or endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). In view of the lower perioperative mortality, EVAR is the treatment of choice. Due to the high prevalence of AAA in siblings of patients with an AAA the screening of these family members should be considered. The minimum number of elective operations per hospital per year has been set at 15.

Elective surgery of abdominal aortic aneurysms in octogenarians: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is an age-related disease. In an aging population, the prevalence of AAA is likely to increase. Open AAA repair in patients aged >80 years is often not considered because of their advanced age as such or because of comorbidities. In addition, little is known about the natural history in such patients or survival after successful repair. We performed a systematic review of the literature to determine peri-operative and late survival after AAA repair in octogenarians METHOD: The Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify all studies reporting on octogenarians undergoing AAA repair published between January 1966 and June 2006. Two independent observers assessed the methodologic quality of the included studies and the data extraction. Outcomes were rates of perioperative mortality, complications, and long-term survival after open or endovascular repair (EVAR). Summary estimates with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a random effects model. RESULTS: Thirty-nine articles were included. The median aneurysm size was 6.7 cm in the conventional AAA repair group of 1534 patients. The perioperative mortality was 0% to 33%, with a pooled mortality of 7.5% (95% CI, 6.2% to 9.0%). The median 5-year survival rate for this group was 60% (range, 14% to 86%). In the 1045 patients treated with EVAR, the median aneurysm size was 5.9 cm. Their pooled perioperative mortality varied from 0% to 6%, with a pooled mortality of 4.6% (95% CI, 3.4 to 6.0%). We could not derive 5-year survival rates from articles describing endovascular repair of AAA. CONCLUSION: The mortality rate after open or endovascular AAA repair in carefully selected octogenarians seems acceptable but is higher than the mortality rate in younger patients. Long-term survival rates were acceptable, but small sample size, selection, and publication bias must be taken into account. Finally, selection criteria for successful surgery with low mortality and morbidity rates cannot be derived from the literature.