Transition from Transrectal to Transperineal MRI-Fusion Prostate Biopsy Does Not Comprise Detection Rates of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer at a Tertiary Care Center.

prostate cancer systematic biopsy targeted biopsy transperineal transrectal

Journal

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

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
05 Jun 2024
Historique:
received: 10 05 2024
revised: 29 05 2024
accepted: 03 06 2024
medline: 19 6 2024
pubmed: 19 6 2024
entrez: 19 6 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

A remarkable paradigm shift has emerged regarding the preferred prostate biopsy approach, favoring the transperineal (TP) over the transrectal (TR) approach due to the reduced risk of severe urinary tract infections. However, its impact on the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) remains unclear. We relied on a prospectively maintained tertiary care database to identify patients who underwent either TP or TR prostate biopsy between 01/2014 and 12/2023. Of those, only patients with suspicious magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) PIRADS lesions (Likert-scale: 3,4,5) received MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies. Detection rates of csPCa (International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] ≥ 2) were compared between biopsy approach (TP vs. TR) according to index lesion. Subsequently, uni- and multivariable logistic regression models were applied to investigate the predictive status of the biopsy approach within each subcohort. Of 2063 patients, 1118 (54%) underwent combined MRI-guided and systematic prostate biopsy and were included in the final cohort. Of those, 127 (11%) and 991 (89%) underwent TP vs. TR. CsPCa rates, regardless of differences in patients' demographics and distribution of index PIRDAS lesions, did not differ statistically significantly and were 51 vs. 52%, respectively (

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
A remarkable paradigm shift has emerged regarding the preferred prostate biopsy approach, favoring the transperineal (TP) over the transrectal (TR) approach due to the reduced risk of severe urinary tract infections. However, its impact on the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) remains unclear.
MATERIALS AND METHODS METHODS
We relied on a prospectively maintained tertiary care database to identify patients who underwent either TP or TR prostate biopsy between 01/2014 and 12/2023. Of those, only patients with suspicious magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) PIRADS lesions (Likert-scale: 3,4,5) received MRI-targeted and systematic biopsies. Detection rates of csPCa (International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] ≥ 2) were compared between biopsy approach (TP vs. TR) according to index lesion. Subsequently, uni- and multivariable logistic regression models were applied to investigate the predictive status of the biopsy approach within each subcohort.
RESULTS RESULTS
Of 2063 patients, 1118 (54%) underwent combined MRI-guided and systematic prostate biopsy and were included in the final cohort. Of those, 127 (11%) and 991 (89%) underwent TP vs. TR. CsPCa rates, regardless of differences in patients' demographics and distribution of index PIRDAS lesions, did not differ statistically significantly and were 51 vs. 52%, respectively (

Identifiants

pubmed: 38893710
pii: diagnostics14111184
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics14111184
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Auteurs

Benedikt Hoeh (B)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Mike Wenzel (M)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Clara Humke (C)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Cristina Cano Garcia (C)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Carolin Siech (C)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, QC H2X 3E4, Canada.

Melissa Schneider (M)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Carsten Lange (C)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Miriam Traumann (M)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Jens Köllermann (J)

Dr. Senckenberg Institute of Pathology, University Hospital Frankfurt, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Felix Preisser (F)

Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, 20246 Hamburg, Germany.

Felix K H Chun (FKH)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Philipp Mandel (P)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Classifications MeSH