Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparative Effectiveness of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Versus In-bore Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsy.
Ramos, Francisco; Korets, Ruslan; Fleishman, Aaron; Kaul, Sumedh; Johnson, Michael; Wei, Jesse L; Olumi, Aria F; Tsai, Leo L; Gershman, Boris.
Afiliação
  • Ramos F; Department of Urology, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX.
  • Korets R; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Division of Urologic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA.
  • Fleishman A; Deparment of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA.
  • Kaul S; Deparment of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA.
  • Johnson M; Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA.
  • Wei JL; Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA.
  • Olumi AF; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Division of Urologic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA.
  • Tsai LL; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA.
  • Gershman B; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Division of Urologic Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA. Electronic address: bgershma@bidmc.harvard.edu.
Urology ; 171: 164-171, 2023 01.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36206828
OBJECTIVE: To examine the comparative effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound (MRI-U/S) fusion biopsy and in-bore MRI-targeted biopsy. METHODS: We identified men aged 18-89 with a diagnosis of elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA) or Gleason 6 prostate cancer on active surveillance who underwent MRI-U/S fusion prostate biopsy (12-core + targeted) in the office or in-bore MRI-targeted biopsy (MRI-IB; targeted only). The cancer detection rate (CDR; Gleason 6-10) and clinically significant CDR (csCDR; Gleason 7-10) were compared across biopsy techniques, adjusted for patient and radiographic features. RESULTS: A total of 280 patients (346 lesions) were included, of whom 23.9% were on active surveillance for Gleason 6 prostate cancer. In the per-patient analyses, there was no statistically significant difference in adjusted overall CDR (64.1% vs 54.2%; P = .24) or csCDR (36.5% vs 37.9%; P = .85) between MRI-U/S and MRI-IB biopsy. In the per-lesion analyses, there was no statistically significant difference in adjusted overall CDR (45.7% vs 50.1%; P = .49) between MRI-U/S and MRI-IB biopsy, but MRI-IB biopsy was associated with a higher csCDR than MRI-U/S biopsy (32.8% vs 21.4%; P = .02). CONCLUSION: We observed no statistically significant differences in cancer detection rates between MRI-U/S fusion biopsy and MRI-IB biopsy in per-patient analyses. However, MRI-IB biopsy was associated with higher csCDR when considering targeted biopsy cores only. These results suggest that systematic cores should be obtained when performing MRI-U/S fusion biopsy.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias da Próstata / Imagem por Ressonância Magnética Intervencionista Limite: Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: Urology Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias da Próstata / Imagem por Ressonância Magnética Intervencionista Limite: Humans / Male Idioma: En Revista: Urology Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article
...