Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Targeted Biopsy with Four Cores Versus Target Saturation Biopsy with Nine Cores in Transperineal Prostate Fusion Biopsy: A Prospective Randomized Trial

被引:9
作者
Saner, Yasemin Melisa [1 ]
Wiesenfarth, Manuel [2 ]
Weru, Vivienn [2 ]
Ladyzhensky, Boris [3 ]
Tschirdewahn, Stephan [1 ]
Puellen, Lukas [1 ]
Bonekamp, David [4 ]
Reis, Henning [5 ]
Krafft, Ulrich [1 ]
Hethorn, Jochen [1 ]
Kesch, Claudia [1 ]
Darr, Christopher [1 ]
Forsting, Michael [6 ]
Wetter, Axel [6 ]
Umutlu, Lale [6 ]
Haubold, Johannes [6 ]
Hadaschik, Boris [1 ]
Radtke, Jan Philipp [1 ,4 ,7 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hosp Essen, Dept Urol, Hufelandstr 55, D-45147 Essen, Germany
[2] German Canc Res Ctr, Div Biostat, Heidelberg, Germany
[3] Univ Hosp Cleveland Med Ctr, Dept Anesthesia & Perioperat Med, Cleveland, OH USA
[4] German Canc Res Ctr, Dept Radiol, Heidelberg, Germany
[5] Univ Duisburg Essen, Inst Pathol, Essen, Germany
[6] Univ Hosp Essen, Inst Diagnost & Intervent Radiol, Essen, Germany
[7] Heinrich Heine Univ, Med Fac, Dept Urol, Dusseldorf, Germany
来源
EUROPEAN UROLOGY ONCOLOGY | 2023年 / 6卷 / 01期
关键词
Prostate cancer; Magnetic resonance imaging; Targeted biopsy; Target saturation; Transrectal ultrasound; DIAGNOSTIC-ACCURACY; MRI; SYSTEM;
D O I
10.1016/j.euo.2022.08.005
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and targeted biopsy (TB) facilitate accurate detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC). However, it remains unclear how targeted cores should be applied for accurate diagnosis of csPC. Objective: To assess csPC detection rates for two target-directed MRI/transrectal ultra-sonography (TRUS) fusion biopsy approaches, conventional TB and target saturation biopsy (TS).Design, setting, and participants: This was a prospective single-center study of outcomes for transperineal MRI/TRUS fusion biopsies for 170 men. Half of the men (n = 85) were randomized to conventional TB with four cores per lesion and half (n = 85) to TS with nine cores. Biopsies were performed by three experienced board-certified urologists.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: PC and csPC (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group >2) detection rates for systematic biopsy (SB), TB, and TS were analyzed using McNemar's test for intrapatient comparisons and Fisher's exact test for TS versus TB. A combination of targeted biopsy (TS or TB) and SB served as the reference.Results and limitations: According to the reference, csPC was diagnosed for 57 men in the TS group and 36 men in the TB group. Of these, TS detected 57/57 csPC cases and TB detected 33/36 csPC cases (p = 0.058). Detection of Gleason grade group 1 disease was 10/12 cases with TS and 8/17 cases with TB (p = 0.055). In addition, TS detected 97% of 63 csPC lesions, compared to 86% with TB (p = 0.1). Limitations include the single-center design, the limited generalizability owing to the transperineal biopsy route, the lack of central review of pathology and radical prostatectomy correlation, and uneven distributions of csPC prevalence, Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 5 lesions, men with two or more PI-RADS >= 3 lesions, and prostate -specific antigen density between the groups, which may have affected the results. Conclusions: In our study, rates of csPC detection did not significantly differ between TS and TB.Patient summary: In this study, we investigated two targeted approaches for taking prostate biopsy samples after observation of suspicious lesions on prostate scans. We found that the rates of detection of prostate cancer did not significantly differ between the two approaches.(c) 2022 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:49 / 55
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Transperineal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy versus Transperineal Template Prostate Mapping Biopsy in the Detection of Localised Radio-recurrent Prostate Cancer
    Kanthabalan, A.
    Abd-Alazeez, M.
    Arya, M.
    Allen, C.
    Freeman, A.
    Jameson, C.
    Kirkham, A.
    Mitra, A. V.
    Payne, H.
    Punwani, S.
    Ramachandran, N.
    Walkden, M.
    Emberton, M.
    Ahmed, H. U.
    CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2016, 28 (09) : 568 - 576
  • [42] Comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasound targeted biopsy versus standard systematic biopsy for clinically significant prostate cancer detection: results of a prospective cohort study with 1024 patients
    Zhu Yunkai
    Chen Yaqing
    Jiang Jun
    Qi Tingyue
    Liu Weiyong
    Qu Yuehong
    Guan Wenbin
    Wang Lifeng
    Qi Jun
    World Journal of Urology, 2019, 37 : 805 - 811
  • [43] 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
  • [44] Is There an Impact of Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy in Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Detection Rate? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Uleri, Alessandro
    Baboudjian, Michael
    Tedde, Alessandro
    Gallioli, Andrea
    Long-Depaquit, Thibaut
    Palou, Joan
    Basile, Giuseppe
    Gaya, Josep Maria
    Sanguedolce, Francesco
    Lughezzani, Giovanni
    Rajwa, Pawel
    Pradere, Benjamin
    Roupret, Morgan
    Briganti, Alberto
    Ploussard, Guillaume
    Breda, Alberto
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY ONCOLOGY, 2023, 6 (06): : 621 - 628
  • [45] Effectiveness of Bi-Parametric MR/US Fusion Biopsy for Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Prostate Biopsy Naive Men
    Kim, Young Joo
    Huh, Jung Sik
    Park, Kyung Kgi
    YONSEI MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2019, 60 (04) : 346 - 351
  • [46] Comparison of clinically significant prostate cancer detection by MRI cognitive biopsy and in-bore MRI-targeted biopsy for naive biopsy patients
    Zhang, Kai
    Zhang, Zhipeng
    Liu, Ming
    Zhu, Gang
    Roobol, Monique J.
    TRANSLATIONAL ANDROLOGY AND UROLOGY, 2020, 9 (02) : 243 - 249
  • [47] Comparative Analysis of Transperineal Template Saturation Prostate Biopsy Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy with Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Guidance
    Radtke, Jan P.
    Kuru, Timur H.
    Boxler, Silvan
    Alt, Celine D.
    Popeneciu, Ionel V.
    Huettenbrink, Clemens
    Klein, Tilman
    Steinemann, Sarah
    Bergstraesser, Claudia
    Roethke, Matthias
    Roth, Wilfried
    Schlemmer, Heinz-Peter
    Hohenfellner, Markus
    Hadaschik, Boris A.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2015, 193 (01) : 87 - 94
  • [48] Transition from Transrectal to Transperineal MRI-Fusion Prostate Biopsy Does Not Comprise Detection Rates of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer at a Tertiary Care Center
    Hoeh, Benedikt
    Wenzel, Mike
    Humke, Clara
    Garcia, Cristina Cano
    Siech, Carolin
    Schneider, Melissa
    Lange, Carsten
    Traumann, Miriam
    Koellermann, Jens
    Preisser, Felix
    Chun, Felix K. H.
    Mandel, Philipp
    DIAGNOSTICS, 2024, 14 (11)
  • [49] Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging and targeted fusion biopsy for early detection of prostate cancer
    Barnett, Christine L.
    Davenport, Matthew S.
    Montgomery, Jeffrey S.
    Wei, John T.
    Montie, James E.
    Denton, Brian T.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2018, 122 (01) : 50 - 58
  • [50] A Prospective Comparison of Transrectal Standard, Cognitive, Transperineal Fusion, and Mapping Prostate Biopsy for Cancer Detection
    Petov, Vladislav
    Bazarkin, Andrey
    Morozov, Andrey
    Taratkin, Mark
    Ganzha, Timur
    Danilov, Sergey
    Chernov, Yaroslav
    Chinenov, Denis
    Rzayev, Ramin
    Suvorov, Alexander
    Amosov, Alexander
    Fajkovic, Harun
    Enikeev, Dmitry
    Krupinov, German
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2023, 37 (08) : 940 - 947