Diagnostic accuracy and clinical implications of robotic assisted MRI-US fusion guided target saturation biopsy of the prostate.
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Biopsy, Large-Core Needle
/ methods
Humans
Image-Guided Biopsy
/ methods
Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Interventional
/ methods
Male
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Grading
Prospective Studies
Prostatic Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Robotic Surgical Procedures
Sensitivity and Specificity
Ultrasonography, Interventional
/ methods
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 10 2021
12 10 2021
Historique:
received:
17
06
2021
accepted:
24
09
2021
entrez:
13
10
2021
pubmed:
14
10
2021
medline:
28
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
MRI-targeted prostate biopsy improves detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa). However, up to 70% of PCa lesions display intralesional tumor heterogeneity. Current target sampling strategies do not yet adequately account for this finding. This prospective study included 118 patients who underwent transperineal robotic assisted biopsy of the prostate. We identified a total of 58 PCa-positive PI-RADS lesions. We compared diagnostic accuracy of a target-saturation biopsy strategy to accuracy of single, two, or three randomly selected targeted biopsy cores and analysed potential clinical implications. Intralesional detection of clinically significant cancer (ISUP ≥ 2) was 78.3% for target-saturation biopsy and 39.1%, 52.2%, and 67.4% for one, two, and three targeted cores, respectively. Target-saturation biopsies led to a more accurate characterization of PCa in terms of Gleason score and reduced rates of significant cancer missed. Compared to one, two, and three targeted biopsy cores, target-saturation biopsies led to intensified staging procedures in 21.7%, 10.9, and 8.7% of patients, and ultimately to a potential change in therapy in 39.1%, 26.1%, and 10.9% of patients. This work presents the concept of robotic-assisted target saturation biopsy. This technique has the potential to improve diagnostic accuracy and thus individual staging procedures and treatment decisions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34642448
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-99854-0
pii: 10.1038/s41598-021-99854-0
pmc: PMC8511036
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
20250Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Pathobiology. 2018;85(1-2):108-116
pubmed: 29393241
World J Oncol. 2019 Apr;10(2):63-89
pubmed: 31068988
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020 Sep;23(3):429-434
pubmed: 31896767
Eur Urol. 2019 Jul;76(1):14-17
pubmed: 31047733
Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:2384894
pubmed: 27990424
BJU Int. 2020 Feb;125(2):260-269
pubmed: 31306539
Eur Urol. 2007 Nov;52(5):1309-22
pubmed: 17720304
Eur Urol. 2013 Dec;64(6):876-92
pubmed: 23787356
J Urol. 2018 Nov;200(5):1030-1034
pubmed: 29733837
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 10;378(19):1767-1777
pubmed: 29552975
Prostate Int. 2020 Sep;8(3):112-115
pubmed: 33102391
Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):618-629
pubmed: 27568654
J Robot Surg. 2020 Feb;14(1):69-74
pubmed: 30783886
J Urol. 2020 Feb;203(2):299-303
pubmed: 31483694
N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 5;382(10):917-928
pubmed: 32130814
IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2019 Sep;66(9):2527-2537
pubmed: 30624210