Targeted prostate biopsy using a cognitive fusion of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound in patients with previously negative systematic biopsies and non-suspicious digital rectal exam.
Journal
Croatian medical journal
ISSN: 1332-8166
Titre abrégé: Croat Med J
Pays: Croatia
ID NLM: 9424324
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Feb 2020
29 Feb 2020
Historique:
entrez:
3
3
2020
pubmed:
3
3
2020
medline:
1
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare cognitive fusion targeted and systematic prostate biopsy in patients with repeated negative systematic biopsy but persistent clinical suspicion for prostate cancer. The study enrolled 63 patients with at least one previously negative systematic biopsy who underwent targeted prostate biopsy using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) in addition to standardized systematic biopsy from July 2016 to May 2018. Multiparametric MRI was performed with 3 Tesla device by uro-radiologists experienced in prostate cancer. Lesions with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System 3, 4, and 5 were considered suspicious. Targeted biopsies were performed with cognitive fusion of TRUS and mpMRI. Prostate cancer detection, using either targeted or systematic biopsy, was 60.32%. Targeted biopsies were positive in 52.38% and systematic biopsies in 47.62% of patients. The median highest percentage of cancer involvement per biopsy core was significantly higher in targeted cylinders. The biopsies obtained by using the two techniques did not significantly differ in Gleason score. Cognitive targeted prostate biopsy based on mpMRI presents a valuable addition to systematic biopsy in patients with repeated negative systematic biopsies but persistent clinical suspicion of prostate cancer.
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
49-54Références
World J Oncol. 2019 Apr;10(2):63-89
pubmed: 31068988
Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):41-9
pubmed: 26361169
Eur Urol. 2015 Dec;68(6):1045-53
pubmed: 25656808
J Urol. 2010 Feb;183(2):433-40
pubmed: 20006878
BJU Int. 2009 Jun;103(12):1647-54
pubmed: 19154461
World J Urol. 2004 Oct;22(4):281-4
pubmed: 14689224
Eur Urol. 2014 Jul;66(1):22-9
pubmed: 24666839
J Urol. 2012 Sep;188(3):974-80
pubmed: 22819118
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Jan 20;33(3):272-7
pubmed: 25512465
Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):517-531
pubmed: 27568655
Lancet. 2017 Feb 25;389(10071):815-822
pubmed: 28110982
Urol Int. 2012;89(2):126-35
pubmed: 22814003
J Urol. 2018 Oct;200(4):774-778
pubmed: 29679618
Eur Urol. 2015 Mar;67(3):569-76
pubmed: 25257029
BJU Int. 2011 Oct;108(8 Pt 2):E171-8
pubmed: 21426475
Radiology. 2017 Nov;285(2):343-356
pubmed: 29045233
Eur Urol. 2013 Nov;64(5):713-719
pubmed: 23787357
J Urol. 2001 Nov;166(5):1679-83
pubmed: 11586201
BJU Int. 2000 Apr;85(6):682-5
pubmed: 10759665
BJU Int. 2015 Apr;115(4):562-70
pubmed: 25252133
Eur Urol. 2007 Nov;52(5):1309-22
pubmed: 17720304
J Urol. 2013 Feb;189(2):493-9
pubmed: 22982424
J Urol. 2016 Dec;196(6):1613-1618
pubmed: 27320841
Scand J Urol. 2015 Feb;49(1):25-34
pubmed: 24922550
Eur Urol. 2015 Sep;68(3):438-50
pubmed: 25480312
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Jul;205(1):57-63
pubmed: 26102380
Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):618-629
pubmed: 27568654
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Jan;204(1):83-91
pubmed: 25539241