Follow-up of men with a PI-RADS 4/5 lesion after negative MRI/Ultrasound fusion biopsy.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 08 2022
10 08 2022
Historique:
received:
06
01
2022
accepted:
22
07
2022
entrez:
10
8
2022
pubmed:
11
8
2022
medline:
13
8
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Magnetic resonance imaging/Ultrasound (MRI/US) fusion targeted biopsy (TB) in combination with a systematic biopsy (SB) improves cancer detection but limited data is available how to manage patients with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) ≥ 4 lesion and a negative biopsy. We evaluate the real-world management and the rate of clinically significant Prostate Cancer (csPCa) during follow-up. 1546 patients with a multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) and a PI-RADS ≥ 3 who underwent SB and TB between January 2012 and May 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. 222 men with a PI-RADS ≥ 4 and a negative biopsy were included until 2019. For 177/222 (80%) complete follow-up data was obtained. 66/84 (78%) had an initial PI-RADS 4 and 18 (22%) a PI-RADS 5 lesion. 48% (84/177) received a repeat mpMRI; in the follow-up mpMRI, 39/84 (46%) lesions were downgraded to PI-RADS 2 and 11 (13%) to PI-RADS 3; three cases were upgraded and 28 lesions remained consistent. 18% (32/177) men underwent repeated TB and csPCa was detected in 44% (14/32). Our study presents real world data on the management of men with a negative TB biopsy. Men with a positive mpMRI and lesions with high suspicion (PI-RADS4/5) and a negative targeted biopsy should be critically reviewed and considered for repeat biopsy or strict surveillance. The optimal clinical risk assessment remains to be further evaluated.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35948575
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-17260-6
pii: 10.1038/s41598-022-17260-6
pmc: PMC9365776
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
13603Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Urol Int. 2017;99(2):177-185
pubmed: 28531902
World J Urol. 2016 Apr;34(4):525-32
pubmed: 26293117
Eur Urol. 2020 Jan;77(1):78-94
pubmed: 31326219
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 10;378(19):1767-1777
pubmed: 29552975
Eur Urol. 2018 Jul;74(1):48-54
pubmed: 29566957
Eur Urol. 2013 Oct;64(4):544-52
pubmed: 23537686
Lancet. 2017 Feb 25;389(10071):815-822
pubmed: 28110982
Eur J Radiol. 2019 Apr;113:1-6
pubmed: 30927932
BJU Int. 2016 Jul;118(1):35-43
pubmed: 26384851
J Urol. 2001 May;165(5):1554-9
pubmed: 11342916
J Urol. 2017 Oct;198(4):832-838
pubmed: 28483574
J Urol. 2015 Jan;193(1):87-94
pubmed: 25079939
J Urol. 2020 Jul;204(1):24-32
pubmed: 31967522
J Urol. 2017 Sep;198(3):583-590
pubmed: 28373133
BJU Int. 2018 Aug;122(2):211-218
pubmed: 29569320
BJU Int. 2013 May;111(6):988-96
pubmed: 23452046
J Urol. 2021 Mar;205(3):748-754
pubmed: 33080145
J Urol. 2018 Oct;200(4):767-773
pubmed: 29733838
J Urol. 2020 Dec;204(6):1180-1186
pubmed: 32614257
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2020 Dec;18(6):e684-e687
pubmed: 32389459
J Urol. 2016 Dec;196(6):1613-1618
pubmed: 27320841
Eur Urol. 2017 Jun;71(6):896-903
pubmed: 28063613
Urol Clin North Am. 2014 May;41(2):327-38
pubmed: 24725493
Eur Radiol. 2020 Oct;30(10):5404-5416
pubmed: 32424596
Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):618-629
pubmed: 27568654
Urol Oncol. 2019 May;37(5):298.e19-298.e27
pubmed: 30770299