Analyzing the learning curves of a novice and an experienced urologist for transrectal magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy.
Learning curve
MRI-US fusion prostate biopsy
magnetic resonance imaging
prostate cancer (PCa)
Journal
Translational andrology and urology
ISSN: 2223-4691
Titre abrégé: Transl Androl Urol
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101581119
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2021
May 2021
Historique:
entrez:
23
6
2021
pubmed:
24
6
2021
medline:
24
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of the current study was to evaluate and compare the learning curves of transrectal magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy for two urologists with different backgrounds (Operator 1: experienced, self-trained and Operator 2: novice, trained by a mentor/MRI reading courses). A cohort of 400 patients who underwent fusion prostate biopsy in our department was analyzed. The learning curves were assessed in terms of overall and clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) detection rates, percentage of positive biopsy cores/targeted and the percentage of PCa tissue on positive targeted cores. Increasing trends were observed for both urologists in terms of all biopsy outcomes during the study time. For the novice urologist, a significant increase was observed for overall PCa detection rate, but not for clinically significant disease (25.44%, P=0.04/15%, P=0.145). Operator 1 showed an increasing diagnosis yield of clinically significant disease up to 104 cases. Similar cancer detection rates were observed when comparing the first and last biopsies performed by both operators. Multivariate analysis adjusted for age, PSA, prostate volume, lesion diameter and PIRADS score showed an increase of PCa detection with 51% for every 52 biopsies performed (P=0.022). When starting with magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy, mentoring and prostate magnetic resonance imaging reading training allow a novice urologist to demonstrate a good initial PCa detection rate. After about 52 cases, he reached a stable PCa and clinically significant PCa detection rate, that was similar to that of an experienced urologist.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The aim of the current study was to evaluate and compare the learning curves of transrectal magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy for two urologists with different backgrounds (Operator 1: experienced, self-trained and Operator 2: novice, trained by a mentor/MRI reading courses).
METHODS
METHODS
A cohort of 400 patients who underwent fusion prostate biopsy in our department was analyzed. The learning curves were assessed in terms of overall and clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) detection rates, percentage of positive biopsy cores/targeted and the percentage of PCa tissue on positive targeted cores.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Increasing trends were observed for both urologists in terms of all biopsy outcomes during the study time. For the novice urologist, a significant increase was observed for overall PCa detection rate, but not for clinically significant disease (25.44%, P=0.04/15%, P=0.145). Operator 1 showed an increasing diagnosis yield of clinically significant disease up to 104 cases. Similar cancer detection rates were observed when comparing the first and last biopsies performed by both operators. Multivariate analysis adjusted for age, PSA, prostate volume, lesion diameter and PIRADS score showed an increase of PCa detection with 51% for every 52 biopsies performed (P=0.022).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
When starting with magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy, mentoring and prostate magnetic resonance imaging reading training allow a novice urologist to demonstrate a good initial PCa detection rate. After about 52 cases, he reached a stable PCa and clinically significant PCa detection rate, that was similar to that of an experienced urologist.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34159076
doi: 10.21037/tau-21-8
pii: tau-10-05-1956
pmc: PMC8185669
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1956-1965Informations de copyright
2021 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-21-8). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
BJU Int. 2021 May;127(5):524-527
pubmed: 33340435
World J Urol. 2019 Feb;37(2):327-335
pubmed: 29967946
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 May;208(5):1058-1063
pubmed: 28225639
Urol Oncol. 2019 May;37(5):299.e1-299.e6
pubmed: 30797649
Int Urol Nephrol. 2017 Sep;49(9):1537-1544
pubmed: 28646483
Eur Urol Oncol. 2019 Mar;2(2):135-140
pubmed: 31017088
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017 Dec;20(4):436-441
pubmed: 28762373
Curr Urol. 2019 Mar 8;12(2):97-103
pubmed: 31114467
Eur Urol Focus. 2018 Mar;4(2):219-227
pubmed: 28753777
Urol Oncol. 2016 Mar;34(3):119.e1-9
pubmed: 26602178
Med Ultrason. 2019 Feb 17;21(1):37-44
pubmed: 30779829
Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):517-531
pubmed: 27568655
BJU Int. 2016 Jan;117(1):80-6
pubmed: 25099182
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2019 Dec;22(4):546-551
pubmed: 30842585
Eur Urol Oncol. 2018 Aug;1(3):202-207
pubmed: 31102622
Yonago Acta Med. 2014 Mar;57(1):53-8
pubmed: 25067878
BJU Int. 2016 Jul;118(1):35-43
pubmed: 26384851
J Urol. 2018 Nov;200(5):1022-1029
pubmed: 29886090
Urology. 2019 Sep;131:40-45
pubmed: 31150691
Urology. 2019 Dec;134:51-55
pubmed: 31542464
World J Urol. 2016 Feb;34(2):215-20
pubmed: 26055645
Eur Urol Oncol. 2018 Jun;1(2):120-128
pubmed: 31100235