Evaluation of the Ginsburg Scheme: Where Is Significant Prostate Cancer Missed?
Ginsburg scheme
biopsy strategy
fusion biopsy
image-guided biopsy [MeSH]
prostatic neoplasms [MeSH]
Journal
Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 May 2021
20 May 2021
Historique:
received:
31
03
2021
revised:
11
05
2021
accepted:
17
05
2021
entrez:
2
6
2021
pubmed:
3
6
2021
medline:
3
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Systematic biopsy (SB) according to the Ginsburg scheme (GBS) is widely used to complement MRI-targeted biopsy (MR-TB) for optimizing the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (sPCa). Knowledge of the GBS's blind sectors where sPCa is missed is crucial to improve biopsy strategies. We analyzed cancer detection rates in 1084 patients that underwent MR-TB and SB. Cancerous lesions that were missed or underestimated by GBS were re-localized onto a prostate map encompassing Ginsburg sectors and blind-sectors (anterior, central, basodorsal and basoventral). Logistic regression analysis (LRA) and prostatic configuration analysis were applied to identify predictors for missing sPCa with the GBS. GBS missed sPCa in 39 patients (39/1084, 3.6%). In 27 cases (27/39, 69.2%), sPCa was missed within a blind sector, with 17/39 lesions localized in the anterior region (43.6%). Neither LRA nor prostatic configuration analysis identified predictors for missing sPCa with the GBS. This is the first study to analyze the distribution of sPCa missed by the GBS. GBS misses sPCa in few men only, with the majority localized in the anterior region. Adding blind sectors to GBS defined a new sector map of the prostate suited for reporting histopathological biopsy results.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Systematic biopsy (SB) according to the Ginsburg scheme (GBS) is widely used to complement MRI-targeted biopsy (MR-TB) for optimizing the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (sPCa). Knowledge of the GBS's blind sectors where sPCa is missed is crucial to improve biopsy strategies.
METHODS
METHODS
We analyzed cancer detection rates in 1084 patients that underwent MR-TB and SB. Cancerous lesions that were missed or underestimated by GBS were re-localized onto a prostate map encompassing Ginsburg sectors and blind-sectors (anterior, central, basodorsal and basoventral). Logistic regression analysis (LRA) and prostatic configuration analysis were applied to identify predictors for missing sPCa with the GBS.
RESULTS
RESULTS
GBS missed sPCa in 39 patients (39/1084, 3.6%). In 27 cases (27/39, 69.2%), sPCa was missed within a blind sector, with 17/39 lesions localized in the anterior region (43.6%). Neither LRA nor prostatic configuration analysis identified predictors for missing sPCa with the GBS.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This is the first study to analyze the distribution of sPCa missed by the GBS. GBS misses sPCa in few men only, with the majority localized in the anterior region. Adding blind sectors to GBS defined a new sector map of the prostate suited for reporting histopathological biopsy results.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34065418
pii: cancers13102502
doi: 10.3390/cancers13102502
pmc: PMC8160743
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020 Mar;23(1):62-65
pubmed: 31932659
N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 5;382(10):917-928
pubmed: 32130814
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2018 Nov;21(4):549-555
pubmed: 29988101
Eur Urol. 2019 Sep;76(3):340-351
pubmed: 30898406
Urology. 2007 Dec;70(6 Suppl):27-35
pubmed: 18194708
Eur Urol Focus. 2021 Mar 24;:
pubmed: 33773964
Eur Urol. 2011 Apr;59(4):477-94
pubmed: 21195536
Eur Urol. 2017 Jun;71(6):896-903
pubmed: 28063613
Radiol Clin North Am. 2006 Sep;44(5):689-710, viii
pubmed: 17030221
Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):618-629
pubmed: 27568654
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2016 Sep;28(9):568-76
pubmed: 27318423
Magn Reson Imaging. 2012 Nov;30(9):1323-41
pubmed: 22770690
BJU Int. 2017 Nov;120(5):631-638
pubmed: 27862869
Eur Urol. 2016 Nov;70(5):846-853
pubmed: 26810346
BJU Int. 2013 Sep;112(5):568-77
pubmed: 23773772
J Urol. 2017 Sep;198(3):575-582
pubmed: 28373135
J Urol. 2013 Mar;189(3):860-6
pubmed: 23063807
Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:2384894
pubmed: 27990424