Detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer in magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography-fusion transperineal targeted biopsy for lesions with a prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 score of 3-5.
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Biopsy, Large-Core Needle
/ methods
Humans
Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Image-Guided Biopsy
/ methods
Japan
Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Interventional
/ methods
Male
Middle Aged
Prostate
/ diagnostic imaging
Prostatic Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Retrospective Studies
Ultrasonography, Interventional
/ methods
clinically significant prostate cancer
magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy
multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging
prostate biopsy
prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2
Journal
International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association
ISSN: 1442-2042
Titre abrégé: Int J Urol
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 9440237
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2019
02 2019
Historique:
received:
24
05
2018
accepted:
05
10
2018
pubmed:
22
11
2018
medline:
25
6
2019
entrez:
22
11
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer classified according to the prostate imaging reporting and data system scoring system using magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound rigid fusion targeted biopsy. A total of 339 patients underwent transperineal magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound rigid fusion targeted biopsy in our institution between January 2015 and July 2017. Patients with prostate imaging reporting and data system category 1 or 2 and those with a pre-biopsy prostate-specific antigen value of >30 ng/mL were excluded from this study. Finally, 310 patients were recruited. The detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer with prostate imaging reporting and data system category 3, 4, and 5 were 1.0% (1/98), 35.1% (47/134) and 73.1% (57/78), respectively. The factors affecting the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer with prostate imaging reporting and data system categories 4 and 5 were: (i) prostate imaging reporting and data system category 5; (ii) prostate volume <40 cc; (iii) no previous biopsy; (iv) lesion located in the peripheral zone; and (v) prostate-specific antigen density >0.35 ng/mL/mL. The detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer on magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound rigid fusion targeted biopsy is very low in patients with prostate imaging reporting and data system category 3; therefore, patients with this classification should not undergo targeted biopsy. Prostate-specific antigen density, prostate volume, locations of suspected cancer and history of biopsy should be considered to predict the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer with prostate imaging reporting and data system categories 4 and 5.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30461076
doi: 10.1111/iju.13842
pmc: PMC7379286
doi:
Types de publication
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
217-222Informations de copyright
© 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Urology published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of the Japanese Urological Association.
Références
J Surg Oncol. 2014 Jun;109(8):830-5
pubmed: 24610744
J Urol. 2018 Mar;199(3):691-698
pubmed: 28941924
Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):149-56
pubmed: 25862143
J Urol. 2016 Dec;196(6):1613-1618
pubmed: 27320841
World J Urol. 2017 Jul;35(7):1015-1022
pubmed: 27830373
Eur Urol. 2014 Jul;66(1):22-9
pubmed: 24666839
Curr Urol. 2015 Jul;8(2):96-100
pubmed: 26889125
Urol Oncol. 2015 Jan;33(1):17.e1-17.e7
pubmed: 25443268
Eur Radiol. 2017 Dec;27(12):5204-5214
pubmed: 28656462
Eur Urol. 2008 Dec;54(6):1297-305
pubmed: 18342430
BJU Int. 2017 Dec;120(6):774-781
pubmed: 28207981
Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):41-9
pubmed: 26361169
Lancet. 2017 Feb 25;389(10071):815-822
pubmed: 28110982
Eur Radiol. 2016 Jun;26(6):1606-12
pubmed: 26396111
BJU Int. 2017 Feb;119(2):225-233
pubmed: 26935594
Eur Radiol. 2012 Apr;22(4):746-57
pubmed: 22322308
BMC Urol. 2017 Dec 12;17(1):117
pubmed: 29233150
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Dec;209(6):1272-1277
pubmed: 28858541
Eur Urol. 2013 Nov;64(5):713-719
pubmed: 23787357
J Urol. 2001 Nov;166(5):1679-83
pubmed: 11586201
Insights Imaging. 2015 Aug;6(4):449-63
pubmed: 26002487
J Urol. 2012 Mar;187(3):1080-6
pubmed: 22266005
Eur Urol. 2006 Dec;50(6):1163-74; discussion 1175
pubmed: 16842903
Cancer. 2018 Jan 15;124(2):278-285
pubmed: 28976544
Eur Radiol. 2013 Nov;23(11):3185-90
pubmed: 23756958
J Urol. 2013 Jun;189(6):2039-46
pubmed: 23485507
Eur Urol. 2013 Oct;64(4):544-52
pubmed: 23537686
Clin Imaging. 2016 Sep-Oct;40(5):885-8
pubmed: 27179959
Eur Urol. 2018 Mar;73(3):353-360
pubmed: 28258784
Eur Urol. 2015 Jun;67(6):1112-1121
pubmed: 25466942