Micro-ultrasound Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance.
Active surveillance
Micro-ultrasound
PI-RADS
PRI-MUS
Prostate Cancer
Prostate biopsy
Systematic biopsy
Targeted biopsy
Journal
European urology open science
ISSN: 2666-1683
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Open Sci
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101771568
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2022
Dec 2022
Historique:
accepted:
29
09
2022
entrez:
3
11
2022
pubmed:
4
11
2022
medline:
4
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Accurate assessment of tumor grade is critical for active surveillance (AS) in prostate cancer. We compared magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and micro-ultrasound scoring (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] v2.1 vs Prostate Risk Identification using Micro-ultrasound [PRI-MUS]) in 128 men on AS. The primary outcome was upgrading to Gleason grade group (GG) ≥2. There was no difference in GG ≥2 detection between the imaging techniques (PRI-MUS score ≥3: 33/34, 98%; PI-RADS score ≥3: 29/34, 85%; We looked at a novel imaging technology, micro-ultrasound, in patients undergoing biopsy during active surveillance for prostate cancer. We found that micro-ultrasound can detect prostate cancer that may require treatment at a similar rate to that with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36325366
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.09.019
pii: S2666-1683(22)02042-0
pmc: PMC9618766
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
33-35Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Author(s).
Références
Eur Urol. 2020 Jun;77(6):675-682
pubmed: 31918957
J Urol. 2022 Apr;207(4):823-831
pubmed: 34854746
Can Urol Assoc J. 2019 Mar;13(3):E70-E77
pubmed: 30169149
JAMA. 2017 Jun 27;317(24):2532-2542
pubmed: 28655021
BJU Int. 2021 Mar;127(3):340-348
pubmed: 32357283
JAMA. 2020 Jan 14;323(2):149-163
pubmed: 31935027
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Jan 20;33(3):272-7
pubmed: 25512465