How many cores should be taken from each region of interest when performing a targeted transrectal prostate biopsy?
Core
Number
Prostate biopsy
Prostate cancer
Targeted biopsy
Journal
Prostate international
ISSN: 2287-8882
Titre abrégé: Prostate Int
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 101605566
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2023
Jun 2023
Historique:
received:
06
11
2022
revised:
30
12
2022
accepted:
09
01
2023
medline:
6
7
2023
pubmed:
6
7
2023
entrez:
6
7
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The number of core biopsies required per region of interest (ROI) is controversial, as is the localization of the core to be taken from a lesion. This study aimed to determine the ideal biopsy core number and location in a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging guided targeted prostate biopsy (TPB), without reducing the clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC) detection rate. Data of patients who had PI-RADS ≥3 lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and underwent a TPB in our clinic between October 2020 and January 2022 were reviewed, retrospectively. The first and second cores were taken from the central part of the ROI, whereas the third and fourth cores were taken from the right and left peripheries of the ROI. We compared the csPC detection success of single-, 2-, 3-, and 4-core samplings. Software-based transrectal TPB was performed on 251 ROIs in a total of 167 patients. Internal Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group ≥2 cancer was detected in at least one core in 64 (25.4%) lesions. Moreover, csPC was detected in 42 (65.6%) ROIs in first-core biopsies; in 59 (92.2%) ROIs in first- and second-core biopsies; in 62 (96.9%) ROIs in first-, second-, and third-core biopsies; and in 64 (100%) ROIs in first-, second-, third-, and fourth-core biopsies. Using McNemar's test for comparison, a significant difference was found in terms of csPC detection success between performing first-core and second-core biopsies (65.6 - 92.2%, We concluded that taking 2-core biopsies from the center of each ROIs during a transrectal TPB is sufficient for diagnosing csPC.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The number of core biopsies required per region of interest (ROI) is controversial, as is the localization of the core to be taken from a lesion. This study aimed to determine the ideal biopsy core number and location in a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging guided targeted prostate biopsy (TPB), without reducing the clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC) detection rate.
Materials and methods
UNASSIGNED
Data of patients who had PI-RADS ≥3 lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and underwent a TPB in our clinic between October 2020 and January 2022 were reviewed, retrospectively. The first and second cores were taken from the central part of the ROI, whereas the third and fourth cores were taken from the right and left peripheries of the ROI. We compared the csPC detection success of single-, 2-, 3-, and 4-core samplings.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Software-based transrectal TPB was performed on 251 ROIs in a total of 167 patients. Internal Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group ≥2 cancer was detected in at least one core in 64 (25.4%) lesions. Moreover, csPC was detected in 42 (65.6%) ROIs in first-core biopsies; in 59 (92.2%) ROIs in first- and second-core biopsies; in 62 (96.9%) ROIs in first-, second-, and third-core biopsies; and in 64 (100%) ROIs in first-, second-, third-, and fourth-core biopsies. Using McNemar's test for comparison, a significant difference was found in terms of csPC detection success between performing first-core and second-core biopsies (65.6 - 92.2%,
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
We concluded that taking 2-core biopsies from the center of each ROIs during a transrectal TPB is sufficient for diagnosing csPC.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37409093
doi: 10.1016/j.prnil.2023.01.003
pii: S2287-8882(23)00003-X
pmc: PMC10318326
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
122-126Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Asian Pacific Prostate Society. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Références
Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2020 Apr;72(2):144-151
pubmed: 32003207
J Urol. 2000 Jan;163(1):168-71
pubmed: 10604338
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249
pubmed: 33538338
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2022 Oct 8;:
pubmed: 36209237
Prostate. 2022 Feb;82(2):227-234
pubmed: 34734428
Eur Urol. 2019 Sep;76(3):340-351
pubmed: 30898406
World J Urol. 2016 Feb;34(2):215-20
pubmed: 26055645
BJU Int. 2020 Feb;125(2):260-269
pubmed: 31306539
Int J Urol. 2015 Feb;22(2):181-6
pubmed: 25257575
J Urol. 2018 Nov;200(5):1030-1034
pubmed: 29733837
Prostate Int. 2022 Sep;10(3):158-161
pubmed: 36225283
Clin Radiol. 2012 Dec;67(12):e64-70
pubmed: 22959852
Eur Urol. 2017 Apr;71(4):517-531
pubmed: 27568655
Urol Oncol. 2021 Mar;39(3):193.e1-193.e6
pubmed: 33127298
Urol Oncol. 2022 Jan;40(1):7.e19-7.e24
pubmed: 34187748
Prostate Int. 2021 Sep;9(3):140-144
pubmed: 34692586
Eur Urol. 2019 Jul;76(1):14-17
pubmed: 31047733
J Urol. 2004 Apr;171(4):1478-80; discussion 1480-1
pubmed: 15017202
Eur Urol. 2013 Jan;63(1):125-40
pubmed: 22743165
Eur Urol. 2013 Dec;64(6):876-92
pubmed: 23787356
J Urol. 2018 Apr;199(4):976-982
pubmed: 29154904
Arch Esp Urol. 2007 Apr;60(3):237-44
pubmed: 17601298
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 10;378(19):1767-1777
pubmed: 29552975
Eur Urol. 2021 Feb;79(2):243-262
pubmed: 33172724
World J Urol. 2017 Jul;35(7):1015-1022
pubmed: 27830373
J Urol. 2017 Jul;198(1):58-64
pubmed: 28093292
Prostate. 2022 Mar;82(4):425-432
pubmed: 34927740
Eur Urol Oncol. 2018 Oct;1(5):418-425
pubmed: 31158081
Eur Urol. 2015 Sep;68(3):438-50
pubmed: 25480312