Assessment of diagnostic value of unilateral systematic biopsy combined with targeted biopsy in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer

被引:0
|
作者
Wu, Jian [1 ]
Xu, Guang [1 ]
Xiang, Lihua [1 ]
Guo, Lehang [1 ]
Wang, Shuai [1 ]
Dong, Lin [1 ]
Sun, Liping [1 ]
机构
[1] Tongji Univ, Shanghai Peoples Hosp 10, Ultrasound Res & Educ Inst, Dept Med Ultrasound Ctr Minimally Invas Treatment, 301,Yanchang Middle Rd, Shanghai 200072, Peoples R China
来源
OPEN MEDICINE | 2024年 / 19卷 / 01期
关键词
prostate cancer; targeted biopsy; diagnostic accuracy; sensitivity; unilateral systematic biopsy; MULTI-PARAMETRIC MRI; MULTIPARAMETRIC MRI; TRUS BIOPSY; ACCURACY; MEN; PROMIS;
D O I
10.1515/med-2024-1048
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objectives This retrospective study assessed the diagnostic accuracy of targeted biopsy (TB) and unilateral systematic biopsy in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in 222 men with single magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) lesions (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] >= 3).Methods Patients underwent multiparametric MRI and MRI/ultrasound fusion TB and 12-needle standard biopsy (SB) from September 2016 to June 2021. The study compared the diagnostic performance of TB + iSB (ipsilateral), TB + contralateral system biopsy (cSB) (contralateral), and TB alone for csPCa using the chi 2 test and analysis of variance.Results Among 126 patients with csPCa (ISUP >= 2), detection rates for TB + iSB, TB + cSB, and TB were 100, 98.90, and 100% for lesions, respectively. TB + iSB showed the highest sensitivity and negative predictive value. No significant differences in accuracy were found between TB + iSB and the gold standard for type 3 lesions (P = 1). For types 4-5, detection accuracy was comparable across methods (P = 0.314, P = 0.314, P = 0.153). TB had the highest positive needle count rate, with TB + iSB being second for type 3 lesions (4.08% vs 6.57%, P = 0.127).Conclusion TB + iSB improved csPCa detection rates and reduced biopsy numbers, making it a viable alternative to TB + SB for single MRI lesions.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] MRI-Targeted, Systematic, or Combined Biopsy for Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer
    Burk, Kristine S.
    Naik, Sachin
    Lacson, Ronilda
    Tuncali, Kemal
    Lee, Leslie K.
    Tempany, Clare
    Cole, Alexander P.
    Trinh, Quoc-Dien
    Kibel, Adam S.
    Khorasani, Ramin
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY, 2023, 20 (07) : 687 - 695
  • [2] Systematic and MRI-Cognitive Targeted Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Accuracy in Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer after Previous Negative Biopsy and Persisting Suspicion of Malignancy
    Vezelis, Alvydas
    Platkevicius, Gediminas
    Kincius, Marius
    Gumbys, Liutauras
    Naruseviciute, Ieva
    Briediene, Ruta
    Petroska, Donatas
    Ulys, Albertas
    Jankevicius, Feliksas
    MEDICINA-LITHUANIA, 2021, 57 (01): : 1 - 10
  • [3] Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer
    Drost, Frank-Jan H.
    Osses, Daniel F.
    Nieboer, Daan
    Steyerberg, Ewout W.
    Bangma, Chris H.
    Roobol, Monique J.
    Schoots, Ivo G.
    COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2019, (04):
  • [4] mpMRI-targeted biopsy versus systematic biopsy for clinically significant prostate cancer diagnosis: a systematic review and metaanalysis
    Baccaglini, Willy
    Glina, Felipe P. A.
    Pazeto, Cristiano L.
    Bernardo, Wanderley M.
    Sanchez-Salas, Rafael
    CURRENT OPINION IN UROLOGY, 2020, 30 (05) : 711 - 719
  • [5] Diagnostic Performance of Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography-targeted biopsy for Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Kawada, Tatsushi
    Yanagisawa, Takafumi
    Rajwa, Pawel
    Motlagh, Reza Sari
    Mostafaei, Hadi
    Quhal, Fahad
    Laukhtina, Ekaterina
    Aydh, Abdulmajeed
    Keonig, Frederik
    Pallauf, Maximilian
    Pradere, Benjamin
    Ceci, Francesco
    Baltzer, Pascal A. T.
    Hacker, Marcus
    Rasul, Sazan
    Karakiewicz, Pierre I.
    Araki, Motoo
    Nasu, Yasutomo
    Shariat, Shahrokh F.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY ONCOLOGY, 2022, 5 (04): : 390 - 400
  • [6] The role of MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer
    Benelli, Andrea
    Vaccaro, Chiara
    Guzzo, Sonia
    Nedbal, Carlotta
    Varca, Virginia
    Gregori, Andrea
    THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES IN UROLOGY, 2020, 12
  • [7] Comparison of MRI/US Fusion Targeted Biopsy and Systematic Biopsy in Biopsy-Naive Prostate Patients with Elevated Prostate-Specific Antigen: A Diagnostic Study
    Huang, Chen
    Huang, Yuhua
    Pu, Jinxian
    Xi, Qilin
    Wei, Xuedong
    Qiu, Feng
    Wang, Ximing
    Zhao, Xiaojun
    Guo, Linchuan
    Hou, Jianquan
    CANCER MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH, 2022, 14 : 1395 - 1407
  • [8] Optimal biopsy approach for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer
    Ippoliti, Simona
    Fletcher, Peter
    Orecchia, Luca
    Miano, Roberto
    Kastner, Christof
    Barrett, Tristan
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2022, 95 (1131)
  • [9] The combination of targeted and systematic prostate biopsies is the best protocol for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer
    Fourcade, Alexandre
    Payrard, Charlotte
    Tissot, Valentin
    Perrouin-Verbe, Marie-Aimee
    Demany, Nicolas
    Serey-Effeil, Sophie
    Callerot, Pierre
    Coquet, Jean-Baptiste
    Doucet, Laurent
    Deruelle, Charles
    Joulin, Vincent
    Nonent, Michel
    Fournier, Georges
    Valeri, Antoine
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2018, 52 (03) : 174 - 179
  • [10] A Prospective Comparison of MRI-US Fused Targeted Biopsy Versus Systematic Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy for Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients on Active Surveillance
    Da Rosa, Michael R.
    Milot, Laurent
    Sugar, Linda
    Vesprini, Danny
    Chung, Hans
    Loblaw, Andrew
    Pond, Gregory R.
    Klotz, Laurence
    Haider, Masoom A.
    JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2015, 41 (01) : 220 - 225