Systematic sampling during MRI-US fusion prostate biopsy can overcome errors of targeting-prospective single center experience after 300 cases in first biopsy setting.
MRI-TRUS fusion prostate biopsy
Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)
prostate cancer diagnosis
systematic biopsy
Journal
Translational andrology and urology
ISSN: 2223-4691
Titre abrégé: Transl Androl Urol
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101581119
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2020
Dec 2020
Historique:
entrez:
18
1
2021
pubmed:
19
1
2021
medline:
19
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and targeted biopsy have become an integral part of the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa), as recommended by the European Association of Urology Guidelines. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the performance of MRI and MRI-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy as first biopsy setting in a tertiary center. A cohort of 300 patients was included in the current analysis. All patients presented with clinical or biochemical suspicion of PCa and harbored at least one suspect lesion on mpMRI. MRI-TRUS fusion prostate biopsy, followed by 12 core systematic prostate biopsy were performed by the same operator using a rigid registration system. The mean age of the patients was 64 years (IQR: 58-68.5 years) and the mean PSA was 6.35 ng/mL (IQR: 4.84-9.46 ng/mL). Overall cancer and csPCa diagnosis rates were 47% and 40.66%. Overall PCa/csPCa detection rates were 20.4%/11.1%, 52%/45% and 68.5%/66.7% for PI-RADS lesions 3, 4 and 5 (P<0.001/P<0.0001). Larger lesion diameter and lesion volume were associated with PCa diagnosis (P=0.006 and P=0.001, respectively). MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy missed PCa diagnosis in 37 cases (of whom 48.6% ISUP 1) in comparison with 9 patients missed by systematic biopsy (of whom 11.1% ISUP 1). In terms of csPCa, systematic biopsy missed 77.7% of the tumors located in the anterior and transitional areas. The rate of csPCa was highest when targeted biopsy was associated with systematic biopsy: 86.52% MRI-TRUS fusion prostate biopsy improves the diagnosis of csPCa. The main advantage of an MRI-guided approach is the diagnosis of anterior and transitional area tumors. The best results in terms of csPCa diagnosis are obtained by the combination of MRI-TRUS fusion with systematic biopsy. The systematic biopsy performed during MRI-targeted biopsy could have an important role in overcoming errors of MRI-TRUS fusion systems.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and targeted biopsy have become an integral part of the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa), as recommended by the European Association of Urology Guidelines. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the performance of MRI and MRI-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy as first biopsy setting in a tertiary center.
METHODS
METHODS
A cohort of 300 patients was included in the current analysis. All patients presented with clinical or biochemical suspicion of PCa and harbored at least one suspect lesion on mpMRI. MRI-TRUS fusion prostate biopsy, followed by 12 core systematic prostate biopsy were performed by the same operator using a rigid registration system.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The mean age of the patients was 64 years (IQR: 58-68.5 years) and the mean PSA was 6.35 ng/mL (IQR: 4.84-9.46 ng/mL). Overall cancer and csPCa diagnosis rates were 47% and 40.66%. Overall PCa/csPCa detection rates were 20.4%/11.1%, 52%/45% and 68.5%/66.7% for PI-RADS lesions 3, 4 and 5 (P<0.001/P<0.0001). Larger lesion diameter and lesion volume were associated with PCa diagnosis (P=0.006 and P=0.001, respectively). MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy missed PCa diagnosis in 37 cases (of whom 48.6% ISUP 1) in comparison with 9 patients missed by systematic biopsy (of whom 11.1% ISUP 1). In terms of csPCa, systematic biopsy missed 77.7% of the tumors located in the anterior and transitional areas. The rate of csPCa was highest when targeted biopsy was associated with systematic biopsy: 86.52%
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
MRI-TRUS fusion prostate biopsy improves the diagnosis of csPCa. The main advantage of an MRI-guided approach is the diagnosis of anterior and transitional area tumors. The best results in terms of csPCa diagnosis are obtained by the combination of MRI-TRUS fusion with systematic biopsy. The systematic biopsy performed during MRI-targeted biopsy could have an important role in overcoming errors of MRI-TRUS fusion systems.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33457225
doi: 10.21037/tau-20-1001
pii: tau-09-06-2510
pmc: PMC7807351
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2510-2518Informations de copyright
2020 Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau-20-1001). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare
Références
Eur Urol. 2019 Apr;75(4):570-578
pubmed: 30477981
Eur Urol Oncol. 2020 Jun;3(3):262-269
pubmed: 31411968
BJU Int. 2018 Aug;122(2):211-218
pubmed: 29569320
J Glob Oncol. 2018 Sep;4:1-10
pubmed: 30241164
Eur Urol. 2019 Sep;76(3):340-351
pubmed: 30898406
Eur Urol Oncol. 2018 Jun;1(2):120-128
pubmed: 31100235
BJU Int. 2020 Feb;125(2):260-269
pubmed: 31306539
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Jul;205(1):57-63
pubmed: 26102380
J Robot Surg. 2020 Feb;14(1):69-74
pubmed: 30783886
Med Ultrason. 2019 Feb 17;21(1):37-44
pubmed: 30779829
Eur Urol. 2013 Oct;64(4):544-52
pubmed: 23537686
Eur Radiol. 2020 Jun;30(6):3383-3392
pubmed: 32052171
BJU Int. 2014 Dec;114(6b):E43-E49
pubmed: 24712649
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 May;208(5):1058-1063
pubmed: 28225639
Lancet. 2017 Feb 25;389(10071):815-822
pubmed: 28110982
J Urol. 2018 Aug;200(2):309-318
pubmed: 29474846
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Apr 25;4:CD012663
pubmed: 31022301
Eur Urol. 2020 Apr;77(4):457-468
pubmed: 31582290
J Urol. 2018 Nov;200(5):1022-1029
pubmed: 29886090
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20(1):100-109
pubmed: 30470502
N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 5;382(10):917-928
pubmed: 32130814
J Urol. 2014 Jun;191(6):1749-54
pubmed: 24333515
Eur Urol Oncol. 2020 Feb;3(1):112-118
pubmed: 31411973
BMC Cancer. 2019 Dec 23;19(1):1244
pubmed: 31870327
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 10;378(19):1767-1777
pubmed: 29552975
JAMA. 2015 Jan 27;313(4):390-7
pubmed: 25626035
Eur Urol Focus. 2019 Jul 8;:
pubmed: 31296485