Detection of extraprostatic extension by transperineal multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted combined with systemic template prostate biopsy.
Extraprostatic extension
Fusion biopsy
Prostate cancer
Template
Transperineal
Transrectal
Journal
Diagnostic pathology
ISSN: 1746-1596
Titre abrégé: Diagn Pathol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101251558
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Sep 2023
11 Sep 2023
Historique:
received:
12
02
2023
accepted:
21
08
2023
medline:
13
9
2023
pubmed:
12
9
2023
entrez:
11
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Extraprostatic extension (EPE) of prostate cancer (PCa) on transrectal (TR) needle core biopsy (Bx) is a rare histopathological finding that can help in clinical decision-making. The detection efficiency of the transperineal (TP) approach is yet to be explored. We retrospectively reviewed 2848 PCa cases using concomitant systemic template biopsy (SBx) and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy (TBx) using the TR (n = 1917) or TP (n = 931) approach at our institution between January 2015 and July 2022. We assessed and compared clinical, MRI, and biopsy characteristics using different approaches (TP and TR) and methods (SBx and TBx). In total, 40 EPE cases were identified (40/2848, 1.4%). TP showed a significantly higher EPE detection rate compared to TR in SBx (TR:0.7% vs. TP:1.6%; p = 0.028) and TBx (TR:0.5% vs. TP:1.2%; p = 0.033), as well as the combined methods (2.1% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.019). A significantly higher incidence of EPEs was found at non-base sites in TP than in TR (76.7% vs. 50%, p = 0.038). SBx showed a higher EPE detection rate than TBx; however, the difference was not statistically significant. TP showed higher prostate-specific antigen density (0.35 vs. 0.17, p = 0.005), higher frequency of GG4-5 in the cores with EPE (65.0% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.020), and more PCa-positive SBx cores (10 vs. 8, p = 0.023) compared to the TR. TP may improve EPE detection compared with TR and should be applied to patients with adverse pre-biopsy features.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Extraprostatic extension (EPE) of prostate cancer (PCa) on transrectal (TR) needle core biopsy (Bx) is a rare histopathological finding that can help in clinical decision-making. The detection efficiency of the transperineal (TP) approach is yet to be explored.
METHODS
METHODS
We retrospectively reviewed 2848 PCa cases using concomitant systemic template biopsy (SBx) and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy (TBx) using the TR (n = 1917) or TP (n = 931) approach at our institution between January 2015 and July 2022. We assessed and compared clinical, MRI, and biopsy characteristics using different approaches (TP and TR) and methods (SBx and TBx).
RESULTS
RESULTS
In total, 40 EPE cases were identified (40/2848, 1.4%). TP showed a significantly higher EPE detection rate compared to TR in SBx (TR:0.7% vs. TP:1.6%; p = 0.028) and TBx (TR:0.5% vs. TP:1.2%; p = 0.033), as well as the combined methods (2.1% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.019). A significantly higher incidence of EPEs was found at non-base sites in TP than in TR (76.7% vs. 50%, p = 0.038). SBx showed a higher EPE detection rate than TBx; however, the difference was not statistically significant. TP showed higher prostate-specific antigen density (0.35 vs. 0.17, p = 0.005), higher frequency of GG4-5 in the cores with EPE (65.0% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.020), and more PCa-positive SBx cores (10 vs. 8, p = 0.023) compared to the TR.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
TP may improve EPE detection compared with TR and should be applied to patients with adverse pre-biopsy features.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37697349
doi: 10.1186/s13000-023-01386-w
pii: 10.1186/s13000-023-01386-w
pmc: PMC10494402
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
101Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
Front Oncol. 2021 Nov 22;11:771864
pubmed: 34881183
J Urol. 2019 Nov;202(5):944-951
pubmed: 31144593
J Urol. 1996 Oct;156(4):1375-80
pubmed: 8808875
Eur Urol. 2019 Sep;76(3):340-351
pubmed: 30898406
J Clin Oncol. 2005 Oct 1;23(28):7005-12
pubmed: 16192588
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2017 Feb;15(1):e33-e36
pubmed: 27530436
Eur Urol Oncol. 2019 Feb;2(1):88-96
pubmed: 30929849
Int J Surg Pathol. 2020 Feb;28(1):44-50
pubmed: 31342804
Urology. 2021 Sep;155:26-32
pubmed: 34048827
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2021 Apr 1;145(4):461-493
pubmed: 32589068
Eur Urol. 2015 Sep;68(3):438-50
pubmed: 25480312
J Urol. 2016 Sep;196(3):703-8
pubmed: 27049874
Ann Diagn Pathol. 2018 Aug;35:80-84
pubmed: 29886397
Urology. 2007 Jun;69(6):1121-7
pubmed: 17572199
Pathology. 2018 Jan;50(1):60-73
pubmed: 29199015
BJU Int. 2010 Aug;106(3):330-3
pubmed: 20002671
Urol Oncol. 2022 May;40(5):191.e1-191.e7
pubmed: 35067430
Cancer. 2007 Jan 1;109(1):13-24
pubmed: 17123267
J Urol. 2022 Jan;207(1):86-94
pubmed: 34428921
World J Urol. 2014 Jun;32(3):761-7
pubmed: 24096432
Eur Urol. 2016 Aug;70(2):233-45
pubmed: 26215604
J Urol. 2002 Jul;168(1):110-5
pubmed: 12050502
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019 Oct;17(5):e860-e870
pubmed: 31281065
Transl Androl Urol. 2018 Sep;7(Suppl 4):S392-S396
pubmed: 30363466
Eur Urol. 2021 Jun;79(6):707-709
pubmed: 32847702
Asian J Androl. 2020 Jul-Aug;22(4):427-431
pubmed: 31424026
Hum Pathol. 2021 Nov;117:101-107
pubmed: 34461132
JAMA. 2015 Jan 27;313(4):390-7
pubmed: 25626035
Eur Urol. 2019 Sep;76(3):284-303
pubmed: 31130434