Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Use of Prostate Systematic and Targeted Biopsy on the Basis of Bi-Parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Biopsy-Naïve Patients.
Cheng, Yifei; Qi, Feng; Liang, Linghui; Zhang, Lei; Cao, Dongliang; Hua, Lixin; Cheng, Gong.
Affiliation
  • Cheng Y; Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
  • Qi F; Department of Urologic Surgery, Jiangsu Cancer Hospital & Jiangsu Institute of Cancer Research & Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
  • Liang L; Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
  • Zhang L; Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
  • Cao D; Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
  • Hua L; Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
  • Cheng G; Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
J Invest Surg ; 35(1): 92-97, 2022 Jan.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32996795
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES:

To explore the performance of targeted biopsy (TB) in combination with systematic biopsy (SB) in the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) in biopsy naïve patients.

METHODS:

From May 2018 to January 2020, 230 biopsy-naïve men with suspicious bi-parametric MRI [bpMRI; Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score ≥3] were enrolled. All patients had prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 20 ng/ml or less. For each patient, transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy was performed. The primary endpoint was the detection rate of CSPC [clinically-significant PCa, International Society of Urological Pathology grade group (ISUP GG) 2 or higher tumors]. The secondary endpoints were the detection rates of CIPC (clinically insignificant PCa, ISUP GG 1 tumors).

RESULTS:

CSPC was detected in 90 patients. Twelve (13.33%) of them were detected by TB only and 18 (20.00%) by SB only. Detection of CSPC by SB and TB did not differ significantly (p = .36). In 4.35% of 230 patients, CSPC would have been missed if we performed SB only, and in 6.09% of patients if we performed TB only. Moreover, combination of TB and SB did not increase the detection of CIPC.

CONCLUSIONS:

No significant difference was found in the detection of CSPC between TB and SB; however, both techniques revealed substantial added value and combination of TB and SB could further improve this detection rate without increasing the detection of CIPC.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Prostate / Prostatic Neoplasms Limits: Humans / Male Language: En Journal: J Invest Surg Year: 2022 Document type: Article

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Prostate / Prostatic Neoplasms Limits: Humans / Male Language: En Journal: J Invest Surg Year: 2022 Document type: Article