Three-dimensional greyscale transrectal ultrasound-guidance and biopsy core preembedding for detection of prostate cancer: Dutch clinical cohort study.
Biopsy
Diagnosis
Prostatic neoplasms
Three-dimensional imaging
Tissue embedding
Journal
BMC urology
ISSN: 1471-2490
Titre abrégé: BMC Urol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968571
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Apr 2019
16 Apr 2019
Historique:
received:
06
08
2018
accepted:
31
03
2019
entrez:
18
4
2019
pubmed:
18
4
2019
medline:
18
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To overcome the limitations regarding two dimensional (2D) greyscale (GS) transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy in prostate cancer (PCa) detection and tissue packaging in biopsy processing, there is an ongoing focus on new imaging and pathology techniques. A three-dimensional (3D) model of the prostate with biopsy needle guidance can be generate by the Navigo™ workstation (UC-care, Israel). The SmartBX™ system (UC-care, Israel) provides a prostate biopsy core preembedding method. The aim of this study was to compare cancer detection rates between the 3D TRUS-guidance and preembedding method with conventional 2D GS TRUS-guidance among patients undergoing prostate biopsies. We retrospectively analyzed the records of all patients who underwent prostate biopsies for PCa detection at our institution from 2007 to 2016. The cohort was divided into a 2D GS TRUS-guidance cohort (from 2007 to 2013, n = 1149) and a 3D GS TRUS-guidance with preembedding cohort (from 2013 to 2016, n = 469). Effect of 3D GS TRUS-guidance with preembedding on detection rate of PCa and clinically significant PCa (Gleason score ≥ 7 or > 2 biopsy cores with a Gleason score 6) was compared to 2D GS TRUS-guidance using regression models. Detection rate of PCa and clinically significant PCa was 39.0 and 24.9% in the 3D GS TRUS cohort compared to 33.5 and 19.0% in the 2D GS TRUS cohort, respectively. On multivariate regression analysis the use of 3D GS TRUS-guidance with preembedding was associated with a significant increase in detection rate of PCa (aOR = 1.33; 95% CI: 1.03-1.72) and clinically significant PCa (aOR = 1.47; 95% CI: 1.09-1.98). Our results suggest that 3D GS TRUS-guidance with biopsy core preembedding improves PCa and clinically significant PCa detection compared to 2D GS TRUS-guidance. Additional studies are needed to justify the application of these systems in clinical practice.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To overcome the limitations regarding two dimensional (2D) greyscale (GS) transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy in prostate cancer (PCa) detection and tissue packaging in biopsy processing, there is an ongoing focus on new imaging and pathology techniques. A three-dimensional (3D) model of the prostate with biopsy needle guidance can be generate by the Navigo™ workstation (UC-care, Israel). The SmartBX™ system (UC-care, Israel) provides a prostate biopsy core preembedding method. The aim of this study was to compare cancer detection rates between the 3D TRUS-guidance and preembedding method with conventional 2D GS TRUS-guidance among patients undergoing prostate biopsies.
METHODS
METHODS
We retrospectively analyzed the records of all patients who underwent prostate biopsies for PCa detection at our institution from 2007 to 2016. The cohort was divided into a 2D GS TRUS-guidance cohort (from 2007 to 2013, n = 1149) and a 3D GS TRUS-guidance with preembedding cohort (from 2013 to 2016, n = 469). Effect of 3D GS TRUS-guidance with preembedding on detection rate of PCa and clinically significant PCa (Gleason score ≥ 7 or > 2 biopsy cores with a Gleason score 6) was compared to 2D GS TRUS-guidance using regression models.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Detection rate of PCa and clinically significant PCa was 39.0 and 24.9% in the 3D GS TRUS cohort compared to 33.5 and 19.0% in the 2D GS TRUS cohort, respectively. On multivariate regression analysis the use of 3D GS TRUS-guidance with preembedding was associated with a significant increase in detection rate of PCa (aOR = 1.33; 95% CI: 1.03-1.72) and clinically significant PCa (aOR = 1.47; 95% CI: 1.09-1.98).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggest that 3D GS TRUS-guidance with biopsy core preembedding improves PCa and clinically significant PCa detection compared to 2D GS TRUS-guidance. Additional studies are needed to justify the application of these systems in clinical practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30991993
doi: 10.1186/s12894-019-0455-7
pii: 10.1186/s12894-019-0455-7
pmc: PMC6469087
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
23Références
Prostate. 2000 Feb 1;42(2):124-9
pubmed: 10617869
Hum Pathol. 2000 Sep;31(9):1102-7
pubmed: 11014578
BJU Int. 2001 Mar;87(5):423-30
pubmed: 11298030
Urology. 2001 May;57(5):914-20
pubmed: 11337294
Urology. 2002 May;59(5):698-703
pubmed: 11992843
World J Urol. 2004 Nov;22(5):339-45
pubmed: 15549322
Med Phys. 2005 Apr;32(4):902-9
pubmed: 15895572
BJU Int. 2007 Jul;100(1):47-50
pubmed: 17433033
Med Phys. 2008 Oct;35(10):4695-707
pubmed: 18975715
J Urol. 2009 Dec;182(6):2659-63
pubmed: 19836804
J Urol. 2010 Feb;183(2):539-44
pubmed: 20006888
Radiology. 2010 Feb;254(2):587-94
pubmed: 20093529
CA Cancer J Clin. 2010 Mar-Apr;60(2):70-98
pubmed: 20200110
Eur Urol. 2012 Mar;61(3):577-83
pubmed: 22104592
Eur Urol. 2012 Aug;62(2):195-200
pubmed: 22342775
Curr Opin Urol. 2012 Jul;22(4):297-302
pubmed: 22595778
Eur Urol. 2012 Nov;62(5):745-52
pubmed: 22704366
Eur Urol. 2013 Feb;63(2):214-30
pubmed: 23021971
BJU Int. 2012 Dec;110(11):1654-60
pubmed: 23043563
J Urol. 2013 Jun;189(6):2039-46
pubmed: 23485507
Eur J Cancer. 2015 Jun;51(9):1164-87
pubmed: 24120180
Prostate Cancer. 2013;2013:783243
pubmed: 24349788
Lancet. 2014 Dec 6;384(9959):2027-35
pubmed: 25108889
Urol Int. 2015;95(2):203-8
pubmed: 25824612
Am J Surg Pathol. 2016 Feb;40(2):244-52
pubmed: 26492179
World J Urol. 2016 Sep;34(9):1255-60
pubmed: 26847183
Eur Urol. 2017 Aug;72(2):250-266
pubmed: 28336078
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 10;378(19):1767-1777
pubmed: 29552975
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20(1):100-109
pubmed: 30470502
Eur Urol. 2019 Apr;75(4):570-578
pubmed: 30477981
J Urol. 1998 Mar;159(3):910-4
pubmed: 9474181