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
  • [21] Do cancer detection rates differ between transperineal and transrectal micro-ultrasound mpMRI-fusion-targeted prostate biopsies? A propensity score-matched study
    Rakauskas, Arnas
    Peters, Max
    Martel, Paul
    van Rossum, Peter S. N.
    La Rosa, Stefano
    Meuwly, Jean-Yves
    Roth, Beat
    Valerio, Massimo
    PLOS ONE, 2023, 18 (01):
  • [22] Where Do Transrectal Ultrasound- and Magnetic Resonance Imaging-guided Biopsies Miss Significant Prostate Cancer?
    Boesen, Lars
    Norgaard, Nis
    Logager, Vibeke
    Balslev, Ingegerd
    Thomsen, Henrik S.
    UROLOGY, 2017, 110 : 154 - 160
  • [23] Magnetic Resonance Imaging Fusion Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Biopsy for Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer
    Wang, Hsin-Kai
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ULTRASOUND, 2021, 29 (02) : 75 - 76
  • [24] Detection of Significant Prostate Cancer with Magnetic Resonance Targeted Biopsies-Should Transrectal Ultrasound-Magnetic Resonance Imaging Fusion Guided Biopsies Alone be a Standard of Care?
    Delongchamps, Nicolas Barry
    Lefevre, Arnaud
    Bouazza, Naim
    Beuvon, Frederic
    Legman, Paul
    Cornud, Francois
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2015, 193 (04): : 1198 - 1204
  • [25] Reasons for missing clinically significant prostate cancer by targeted magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy
    Klingebiel, M.
    Arsov, C.
    Ullrich, T.
    Quentin, M.
    Al-Monajjed, R.
    Mally, D.
    Sawicki, L. M.
    Hiester, A.
    Esposito, I
    Albers, P.
    Antoch, G.
    Schimmoeller, L.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2021, 137
  • [26] PROPENSITY SCORE ANALYSIS OF PATHOLOGICAL OUTCOME AT RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY FOR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING-TRANSRECTAL ULTRASOUND FUSION PROSTATE BIOPSY VERSUS UNTARGETED EXTENDED TRANSRECTAL ULTRASOUND GUIDED PROSTATE BIOPSY
    Arora, Hans
    Elshafei, Ahmed
    Nyame, Yaw
    Sun, Daniel
    Liang, Helen
    Yerram, Nitin
    Greene, Daniel
    Grimberg, Dominic
    Gupta, Karishma
    Agrawal, Shree
    Isharwal, Sudhir
    Babbar, Paurush
    Sun, Andrew
    Fareed, Khaled
    Gong, Michael
    Berglund, Ryan
    Klein, Eric
    Stephenson, Andrew
    Purysko, Andrei
    Jones, J. Stephen
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2017, 197 (04): : E488 - E489
  • [27] Utility of repeat transrectal ultrasound guided prostate needle biopsies in prostate cancer detection
    Lewis, Jane M.
    Bettendorf, Daniel
    Loughlin, Keven
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 2006, 203 (03) : S96 - S96
  • [28] Environmental Impact of Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Prostate Biopsy
    Leapman, Michael S.
    Thiel, Cassandra L.
    Gordon, Ilyssa O.
    Nolte, Adam C.
    Perecman, Aaron
    Loeb, Stacy
    Overcash, Michael
    Sherman, Jodi D.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2023, 83 (05) : 463 - 471
  • [29] PROSTATE CANCER DETECTION AND COMPLICATIONS OF TRANSPERINEAL VERSUS TRANSRECTAL MRI-FUSION GUIDED PROSTATE BIOPSIES
    Buller, Dylan
    Sahl, Jessa
    Staff, Ilene
    Tortora, Joseph
    Pinto, Kevin
    McLaughlin, Tara
    Valintin, Laura Olivo
    Wagner, Joseph
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2022, 207 (05): : E137 - E137
  • [30] Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies vs. magnetic resonance imaging ultrasound fusion targeted biopsies: Who are the best candidates?
    Bey, Elsa
    Gaget, Olivier
    Descotes, Jean-Luc
    Franquet, Quentin
    Rambeaud, Jean-Jacques
    Long, Jean-Alexandre
    Fiard, Gaelle
    CUAJ-CANADIAN UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 2018, 12 (01): : E10 - E14