A Comparative Evaluation of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Micro-Ultrasound for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients with Prior Negative Biopsies.

diagnosis imaging micro-ultrasound multiparametric MRI prostate biopsy prostate cancer

Journal

Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2075-4418
Titre abrégé: Diagnostics (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101658402

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 Mar 2024
Historique:
received: 30 01 2024
revised: 25 02 2024
accepted: 27 02 2024
medline: 13 3 2024
pubmed: 13 3 2024
entrez: 13 3 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The diagnostic process for prostate cancer after a negative biopsy is challenging. This study compares the diagnostic accuracy of micro-ultrasound (mUS) with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for such cases. A retrospective cohort study was performed, targeting men with previous negative biopsies and using mUS and mpMRI to detect prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). In our cohort of 1397 men, 304 had a history of negative biopsies. mUS was more sensitive than mpMRI, with better predictive value for negative results. Importantly, mUS was significantly associated with csPCa detection (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 6.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.15-37.8; mUS may be preferable for diagnosing prostate cancer in previously biopsy-negative patients. However, the retrospective design of this study at a single institution suggests that further research across multiple centers is warranted.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The diagnostic process for prostate cancer after a negative biopsy is challenging. This study compares the diagnostic accuracy of micro-ultrasound (mUS) with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for such cases.
METHODS METHODS
A retrospective cohort study was performed, targeting men with previous negative biopsies and using mUS and mpMRI to detect prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).
RESULTS RESULTS
In our cohort of 1397 men, 304 had a history of negative biopsies. mUS was more sensitive than mpMRI, with better predictive value for negative results. Importantly, mUS was significantly associated with csPCa detection (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 6.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.15-37.8;
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
mUS may be preferable for diagnosing prostate cancer in previously biopsy-negative patients. However, the retrospective design of this study at a single institution suggests that further research across multiple centers is warranted.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38472997
pii: diagnostics14050525
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics14050525
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Auteurs

Edoardo Beatrici (E)

Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy.
Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy.

Nicola Frego (N)

Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy.
Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy.

Giuseppe Chiarelli (G)

Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy.
Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy.

Federica Sordelli (F)

Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy.
Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy.

Stefano Mancon (S)

Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy.
Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy.

Cesare Saitta (C)

Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy.
Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy.

Fabio De Carne (F)

Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy.
Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy.

Giuseppe Garofano (G)

Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy.
Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy.

Paola Arena (P)

Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy.
Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy.

Pier Paolo Avolio (PP)

Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy.
Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy.

Andrea Gobbo (A)

Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy.
Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy.

Alessandro Uleri (A)

Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy.
Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy.

Roberto Contieri (R)

Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy.
Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy.

Marco Paciotti (M)

Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy.

Massimo Lazzeri (M)

Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy.

Rodolfo Hurle (R)

Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy.

Paolo Casale (P)

Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy.

Nicolò Maria Buffi (NM)

Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy.
Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy.

Giovanni Lughezzani (G)

Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, 20072 Pieve Emanuele, MI, Italy.
Department of Urology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, 20089 Rozzano, MI, Italy.

Classifications MeSH