Author:
Kaneko Masatomo,Medina Luis G.,Lenon Maria Sarah L.,Hemal Sij,Sayegh Aref S.,Jadvar Donya S.,Ramacciotti Lorenzo Storino,Paralkar Divyangi,Cacciamani Giovanni E.,Lebastchi Amir H.,Salhia Bodour,Aron Manju,Hopstone Michelle,Duddalwar Vinay,Palmer Suzanne L.,Gill Inderbir S.,Abreu Andre Luis
Abstract
AbstractThe objective of this study was to compare transperineal (TP) versus transrectal (TR) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy (PBx). Consecutive men who underwent prostate MRI followed by a systematic biopsy. Additional target biopsies were performed from Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PIRADS) 3–5 lesions. Men who underwent TP PBx were matched 1:2 with a synchronous cohort undergoing TR PBx by PSA, Prostate volume (PV) and PIRADS score. Endpoint of the study was the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa; Grade Group ≥ 2). Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed. Results were considered statistically significant if p < 0.05. Overall, 504 patients met the inclusion criteria. A total of 168 TP PBx were pair-matched to 336 TR PBx patients. Baseline demographics and imaging characteristics were similar between the groups. Per patient, the CSPCa detection was 2.1% vs 6.3% (p = 0.4) for PIRADS 1–2, and 59% vs 60% (p = 0.9) for PIRADS 3–5, on TP vs TR PBx, respectively. Per lesion, the CSPCa detection for PIRADS 3 (21% vs 16%; p = 0.4), PIRADS 4 (51% vs 44%; p = 0.8) and PIRADS 5 (76% vs 84%; p = 0.3) was similar for TP vs TR PBx, respectively. However, the TP PBx showed a longer maximum cancer core length (11 vs 9 mm; p = 0.02) and higher cancer core involvement (83% vs 65%; p < 0.001) than TR PBx. Independent predictors for CSPCa detection were age, PSA, PV, abnormal digital rectal examination findings, and PIRADS 3–5. Our study demonstrated transperineal MRI/TRUS fusion PBx provides similar CSPCa detection, with larger prostate cancer core length and percent of core involvement, than transrectal PBx.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference33 articles.
1. Mottet, N. et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur. Assoc. Urol. 1–234 https://d56bochluxqnz.cloudfront.net/documents/full-guideline/EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG-Guidelines-on-Prostate-Cancer-2023_2023-03-27-131655_pdvy.pdf (2023).
2. Moses, K. A. et al. Prostate cancer early detection version 1.2023. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate_detection.pdf (2023).
3. NICE. NICE guideline Prostate cancer: Diagnosis and management. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng131/resources/prostate-cancer-diagnosis-and-management-pdf-66141714312133 (2019).
4. Bjurlin, M. A. et al. Update of the standard operating procedure on the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis, staging and management of prostate cancer. J. Urol. 203, 706–712 (2020).
5. Rai, B. P. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion-guided transperineal versus magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion-guided transrectal prostate biopsy-A systematic review. Eur. Urol. Oncol. 4, 904–913 (2021).
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献