Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Targeted Biopsy with Four Cores Versus Target Saturation Biopsy with Nine Cores in Transperineal Prostate Fusion Biopsy: A Prospective Randomized Trial.


Journal

European urology oncology
ISSN: 2588-9311
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Oncol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101724904

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
02 2023
Historique:
received: 26 12 2021
revised: 04 08 2022
accepted: 29 08 2022
pubmed: 30 9 2022
medline: 11 2 2023
entrez: 29 9 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and targeted biopsy (TB) facilitate accurate detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC). However, it remains unclear how targeted cores should be applied for accurate diagnosis of csPC. To assess csPC detection rates for two target-directed MRI/transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) fusion biopsy approaches, conventional TB and target saturation biopsy (TS). This was a prospective single-center study of outcomes for transperineal MRI/TRUS fusion biopsies for 170 men. Half of the men (n = 85) were randomized to conventional TB with four cores per lesion and half (n = 85) to TS with nine cores. Biopsies were performed by three experienced board-certified urologists. PC and csPC (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2) detection rates for systematic biopsy (SB), TB, and TS were analyzed using McNemar's test for intrapatient comparisons and Fisher's exact test for TS versus TB. A combination of targeted biopsy (TS or TB) and SB served as the reference. According to the reference, csPC was diagnosed for 57 men in the TS group and 36 men in the TB group. Of these, TS detected 57/57 csPC cases and TB detected 33/36 csPC cases (p = 0.058). Detection of Gleason grade group 1 disease was 10/12 cases with TS and 8/17 cases with TB (p = 0.055). In addition, TS detected 97% of 63 csPC lesions, compared to 86% with TB (p = 0.1). Limitations include the single-center design, the limited generalizability owing to the transperineal biopsy route, the lack of central review of pathology and radical prostatectomy correlation, and uneven distributions of csPC prevalence, Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 5 lesions, men with two or more PI-RADS ≥3 lesions, and prostate-specific antigen density between the groups, which may have affected the results. In our study, rates of csPC detection did not significantly differ between TS and TB. In this study, we investigated two targeted approaches for taking prostate biopsy samples after observation of suspicious lesions on prostate scans. We found that the rates of detection of prostate cancer did not significantly differ between the two approaches.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and targeted biopsy (TB) facilitate accurate detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC). However, it remains unclear how targeted cores should be applied for accurate diagnosis of csPC.
OBJECTIVE
To assess csPC detection rates for two target-directed MRI/transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) fusion biopsy approaches, conventional TB and target saturation biopsy (TS).
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This was a prospective single-center study of outcomes for transperineal MRI/TRUS fusion biopsies for 170 men. Half of the men (n = 85) were randomized to conventional TB with four cores per lesion and half (n = 85) to TS with nine cores. Biopsies were performed by three experienced board-certified urologists.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
PC and csPC (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2) detection rates for systematic biopsy (SB), TB, and TS were analyzed using McNemar's test for intrapatient comparisons and Fisher's exact test for TS versus TB. A combination of targeted biopsy (TS or TB) and SB served as the reference.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS
According to the reference, csPC was diagnosed for 57 men in the TS group and 36 men in the TB group. Of these, TS detected 57/57 csPC cases and TB detected 33/36 csPC cases (p = 0.058). Detection of Gleason grade group 1 disease was 10/12 cases with TS and 8/17 cases with TB (p = 0.055). In addition, TS detected 97% of 63 csPC lesions, compared to 86% with TB (p = 0.1). Limitations include the single-center design, the limited generalizability owing to the transperineal biopsy route, the lack of central review of pathology and radical prostatectomy correlation, and uneven distributions of csPC prevalence, Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 5 lesions, men with two or more PI-RADS ≥3 lesions, and prostate-specific antigen density between the groups, which may have affected the results.
CONCLUSIONS
In our study, rates of csPC detection did not significantly differ between TS and TB.
PATIENT SUMMARY
In this study, we investigated two targeted approaches for taking prostate biopsy samples after observation of suspicious lesions on prostate scans. We found that the rates of detection of prostate cancer did not significantly differ between the two approaches.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36175281
pii: S2588-9311(22)00145-6
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2022.08.005
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Randomized Controlled Trial Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

49-55

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Yasemin Melisa Saner (YM)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.

Manuel Wiesenfarth (M)

Division of Biostatistics, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.

Vivienn Weru (V)

Division of Biostatistics, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.

Boris Ladyzhensky (B)

Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Stephan Tschirdewahn (S)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.

Lukas Püllen (L)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.

David Bonekamp (D)

Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.

Henning Reis (H)

Institute of Pathology, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.

Ulrich Krafft (U)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.

Jochen Heß (J)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.

Claudia Kesch (C)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.

Christopher Darr (C)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.

Michael Forsting (M)

Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.

Axel Wetter (A)

Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.

Lale Umutlu (L)

Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.

Johannes Haubold (J)

Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.

Boris Hadaschik (B)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.

Jan Philipp Radtke (JP)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany; Department of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany. Electronic address: j.radtke@dkfz-heidelberg.de.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH