New transperineal ultrasound-guided biopsy for men in whom PSA is increasing after Miles' operation.
Biopsy outcomes
Biopsy techniques
Miles’ operation
Prostate cancer
Transperineal US
Journal
Insights into imaging
ISSN: 1869-4101
Titre abrégé: Insights Imaging
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101532453
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Mar 2023
16 Mar 2023
Historique:
received:
21
09
2022
accepted:
04
02
2023
entrez:
17
3
2023
pubmed:
18
3
2023
medline:
18
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Currently, a prostate biopsy is guided by transrectal ultrasound (US) alone. However, this biopsy cannot be performed in men without an anus. The aim of this study was to show the outcomes of a new transperineal US (TPUS)-guided biopsy technique in patients who underwent Miles' operation. Between April 2009 and March 2022, TPUS-guided biopsy was consecutively conducted in 9 patients (median, 71 years; range, 61-78 years) with high prostate-specific antigen values (22.60 ng/mL; 6.19-69.7 ng/mL). Their anuses were all removed due to rectal cancer. TPUS-guided biopsy was performed according to information on prostate magnetic resonance imaging. The technical success rate, cancer detection rate, and complication rate were recorded. Tumor sizes were compared between benign and cancer groups using an unpaired t-test with Welch's correction. The new TPUS-guided biopsy was successfully performed in all patients. Cancer was detected in 77.8% (7/9) of the patients. These were all categorized as PI-RADS 5. Among them, the detection rate of significant cancer (Gleason score 7 or higher) was 66.7% (6/9). The median tumor size was 2.4 cm (1.7-3.1 cm). However, two patients were diagnosed with benign tissue with PI-RADS 3 or PI-RADS 4. Their median tumor size was 1.0 cm (0.8-1.2 cm). There was significant difference between the cancer and benign groups (p = 0.037) in terms of tumor size. Neither post-biopsy bleeding nor infections occurred. New TPUS-guided biopsy technique may contribute to detecting large PI-RADS 5 prostate cancer in men after Miles' operation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36929129
doi: 10.1186/s13244-023-01384-y
pii: 10.1186/s13244-023-01384-y
pmc: PMC10020382
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
42Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007 Feb;33(1):49-54
pubmed: 17110075
Ultrasonography. 2017 Oct;36(4):336-348
pubmed: 28736429
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Nov 11;13(22):
pubmed: 34830798
Eur Urol. 2019 Sep;76(3):340-351
pubmed: 30898406
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2005 Jul-Aug;16(4):285-92
pubmed: 15782286
World J Surg Oncol. 2019 Feb 13;17(1):31
pubmed: 30760274
Front Oncol. 2021 Jun 09;11:608409
pubmed: 34178615
Acta Radiol. 2022 Apr;63(4):559-565
pubmed: 34027681
J Clin Med. 2020 Feb 15;9(2):
pubmed: 32075275
Am J Surg Pathol. 2016 Feb;40(2):244-52
pubmed: 26492179
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2021 Apr;31(4):382-389
pubmed: 33646052
Ther Adv Urol. 2019 Aug 28;11:1756287219870074
pubmed: 31489033
Am J Surg Pathol. 2005 Sep;29(9):1228-42
pubmed: 16096414
Acta Radiol. 2007 Mar;48(2):232-7
pubmed: 17354147
Nat Rev Urol. 2013 Oct;10(10):589-97
pubmed: 24061532
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Aug;52(2):265-268
pubmed: 29024196
Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):16-40
pubmed: 26427566
Urol Clin North Am. 2021 Feb;48(1):25-33
pubmed: 33218591
J Ultrasound Med. 2020 Jan;39(1):191-196
pubmed: 31257624
World J Radiol. 2016 Apr 28;8(4):370-7
pubmed: 27158423