A Propensity Score-matched Comparison of Micro-ultrasound-guided Transrectal and Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion-guided Transperineal Prostate Biopsies for Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer

被引:1
|
作者
Piccolini, Andrea [1 ,2 ]
Avolio, Pier Paolo [1 ,2 ]
Saitta, Cesare [1 ,2 ]
Beatrici, Edoardo [1 ,2 ]
Moretto, Stefano [1 ,2 ]
Aljoulani, Muhannad [1 ,2 ]
Dagnino, Filippo [1 ,2 ]
Maffei, Davide [1 ,2 ]
Frego, Nicola [1 ,2 ]
Fasulo, Vittorio [1 ,2 ]
Paciotti, Marco [2 ]
Hurle, Rodolfo [2 ]
Saita, Alberto [2 ]
Lazzeri, Massimo [2 ]
Casale, Paolo [2 ]
Colombo, Piergiuseppe [1 ,3 ]
Cieri, Miriam [3 ]
Buffi, Nicolo Maria [2 ]
Lughezzani, Giovanni [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Humanitas Univ, Dept Biomed Sci, Via Rita Levi Montalcini 4, Milan, Italy
[2] IRCCS Humanitas Res Hosp, Dept Urol, Milan, Italy
[3] IRCCS Humanitas Res Hosp, Dept Pathol, Milan, Italy
来源
关键词
Prostate biopsy; Diagnosis; Micro-ultrasound; Magnetic resonance imaging; Multiparametric; Transrectal ultrasound;
D O I
10.1016/j.euros.2024.08.013
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background and objective: High-resolution micro-ultrasound (microUS) is an advanced imaging tool. Our objective was to determine whether systematic microUS use for transrectal biopsy (TRBx) improves the detection rate for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in comparison to transperineal biopsy (TPBx) performed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/conventional transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion software. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data for men who underwent prostate biopsies, including those on active surveillance (AS). TRBx was performed under microUS guidance, while MRI/TRUS fusion was consistently used to guide TPBx. Patients were matched according to propensity score matching (PSM). The primary endpoint was comparison of the csPCa detection rate with the two approaches. Secondary endpoints included predictors of csPCa (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group >= 2, assessed via multivariable logistic regression) and complication rates. Key findings and limitations: Overall, 1423 patients were enrolled. After applying PSM we identified an analytical cohort of 1094 men, 582 in the TRBx group and 512 in the TPBx group. There was no significant difference in the csPCa detection rate between the TRBx (45%) and TPBx (51%) groups (p = 0.07). Complications occurred in nine of 1094 patients (1%). On adjusted multivariable analysis, TPBx had a similar csPCa detection rate to TRBx (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.26;p = 0.09). Predictors of csPCa detection were a positive family history (aOR 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-2.35; p = 0.002); age (aOR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06; p < 0.001); positive digital rectal examination (aOR 2.35, 95% CI 1.70-3.25; p < 0.001); prostate-specific antigen density >= 0.15 ng/ml/cm(3) (aOR 3.23, 95% CI 2.47-4.23; p < 0.001); and a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score >= 3 (aOR 2.46; 95% CI 1.83-3.32; p < 0.001). Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study, the risk of underestimating the complication rate, and the heterogeneity of biopsy indications. Conclusions and clinical implications: TRBx using microUS alone showed a comparable csPCa detection rate to TPBx guided by MRI/TRUS fusion software. Given the better visualization and real-time detection of suspicious zones with microUS, the potential for improvement in the csPCa detection rate with greater integration of microUS in the TPBx setting warrants further investigation. (c) 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
引用
收藏
页码:7 / 12
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy: a comparison with systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy
    Silecchia, G.
    Falagario, U.
    Sanguedolce, F.
    Macarini, L.
    Autorino, R.
    Cormio, L.
    JOURNAL OF GERONTOLOGY AND GERIATRICS, 2018, 66 (04): : 200 - 204
  • [2] Improving Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Guided Prostate Biopsy
    Rastinehad, Ardeshir R.
    Turkbey, Baris
    Salami, Simpa S.
    Yaskiv, Oksana
    George, Arvin K.
    Fakhoury, Mathew
    Beecher, Karin
    Vira, Manish A.
    Kavoussi, Louis R.
    Siegel, David N.
    Villani, Robert
    Ben-Levi, Eran
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2014, 191 (06): : 1749 - 1754
  • [3] Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-guided Transperineal Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-guided Transrectal Prostate Biopsy-A Systematic Review
    Rai, Bhavan Prasad
    Mayerhofer, Christoph
    Somani, Bhaskar Kumar
    Kallidonis, Panagiotis
    Nagele, Udo
    Tokas, Theodoros
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY ONCOLOGY, 2021, 4 (06): : 904 - 913
  • [4] Are Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Targeted Biopsies Noninferior to Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Systematic Biopsies for the Detection of Prostate Cancer?
    Delongchamps, Nicolas Barry
    Portalez, Daniel
    Bruguiere, Eric
    Rouviere, Olivier
    Malavaud, Bernard
    Mozer, Pierre
    Fiard, Gaelle
    Cornud, Francois
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2016, 196 (04): : 1069 - 1075
  • [5] The Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Biopsies with Conventional Transrectal Biopsies in Prostate Cancer Detection
    Baba, Dursun
    Balik, Ahmet Yildirim
    Yuksel, Alpaslan
    Senoglu, Yusuf
    UROONKOLOJI BULTENI-BULLETIN OF UROONCOLOGY, 2021, 20 (04): : 210 - 214
  • [6] Improving Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Guided Prostate Biopsy EDITORIAL COMMENTS
    Hadaschik, Boris A.
    Kuru, Timur H.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2014, 191 (06): : 1754 - 1754
  • [7] Re: Improving Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Guided Prostate Biopsy Reply
    不详
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2014, 192 (06): : 1888 - 1889
  • [8] TRANSPERINEAL VS TRANSRECTAL MICRO-ULTRASOUND AND MPMRI TARGETED PROSTATE BIOPSIES: PROPENSITY SCORE-MATCHED STUDY
    Rakauskas, Arnas
    Peters, Max
    Martel, Paul
    La Rosa, Stefano
    Meuwly, Jean-Yves
    Roth, Beat
    Valerio, Massimo
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2021, 206 : E84 - E84
  • [9] Comparison of Initial Experience with Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging Cognitive Guided Micro-Ultrasound Biopsies versus Established Transperineal Robotic Ultrasound Magnetic Resonance Imaging Fusion Biopsies for Prostate Cancer
    Claros, Oliver Rojas
    Tourinho-Barbosa, Rafael Rocha
    Fregeville, Aude
    Colomer Gallardo, Anna
    Muttin, Fabio
    Carneiro, Arie
    Stabile, Armando
    Moschini, Marco
    Macek, Petr
    Cathala, Nathalie
    Mombet, Annick
    Sanchez-Salas, Rafael
    Cathelineau, Xavier
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2020, 203 (05): : 918 - 923
  • [10] Prostate Cancer Detection and Complications of Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging- fusion Guided Prostate Biopsies
    Buller, Dylan
    Sahl, Jessa
    Staff, Ilene
    Tortora, Joseph
    Pinto, Kevin
    Mclaughlin, Tara
    Valentin, Laura Olivo
    Wagner, Joseph
    UROLOGY, 2023, 177 : 109 - 114