Comparison of Initial Experience with Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging Cognitive Guided Micro-Ultrasound Biopsies versus Established Transperineal Robotic Ultrasound Magnetic Resonance Imaging Fusion Biopsies for Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: We compared cancer detection rates in patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging cognitive guided micro-ultrasound biopsy vs robotic ultrasound magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy for prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among 269 targeted biopsy procedures 222 men underwent robotic ultrasound magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy and 47 micro-ultrasound biopsy. Robotic ultrasound magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy was performed using the transperineal Artemis™ device while micro-ultrasound biopsy was performed transrectally with the high resolution ExactVu™ system. Random biopsies were performed in addition to targeted biopsy in both modalities. Prostate cancer detection rates and concordance between random and target biopsies were also assessed. RESULTS: Groups were comparable in terms of age, prostate specific antigen, prostate volume and magnetic resonance PI-RADS (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System) version 2 score. The micro-ultrasound biopsy group presented fewer biopsied cores in random and target approaches. In targeted biopsies micro-ultrasound biopsy cases presented higher detection of clinically significant disease (Gleason score greater than 6) than the robotic ultrasound magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy group (38% vs 23%, p=0.02). When considering prostate cancer detection regardless of Gleason score or prostate cancer detection by random+target biopsies, no difference was found between the groups. However, on a per core basis overall prostate cancer detection rates favored micro-ultrasound biopsy in random and targeted scenarios. In addition, the PRI-MUS (Prostate Risk Identification Using Micro-Ultrasound) score yielded by micro-ultrasound visualization was independently associated with improved cancer detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: In our initial experience micro-ultrasound biopsy featured a higher clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate in target cores than robotic ultrasound magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsy, which was associated with target features in micro-ultrasound (PRI-MUS score). These findings reinforce the role of micro-ultrasound technology in targeted biopsies.

Cost-analysis of robot-assisted radical cystectomy in Europe: A cross-country comparison.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) with intracorporeal urinary diversion (ICUD) is surging worldwide. Aim of the study was to perform a multicentric cost-analysis of RARC by comparing the gross cost of the intervention across hospitals in four different European countries. METHODS: Patients who underwent RARC + ICUD were recruited from eleven European centers in four European countries (Belgium, France, Netherlands, and UK) between 2015 and 2020. Costs were divided into six parts: cost for hospital stay, cost for ICU stay, cost for surgical theater occupation, cost for transfusion, cost for robotic instruments, and cost for stapling instruments. These costs were individually assessed for each patient. RESULTS: A total of 490 patients were included. Median operative time was 300(270-360) minutes and median hospital length-of-stay was 11(8-15) days. The average total cost of RARC was 14.794€ (95%CI 14.300-15.200€). A significant difference was found for the total cost, as well as the various subcosts abovementioned, between the four included countries. Different sets and types of robotic instruments were used by each center, leading to a difference in cost of robotic instrumentation. Nearly 84% of costs of RARC were due to hospital stay (42%), ICU stay (3%) and operative time (39%), while 16% of costs were due to robotic (8%) and stapling (8%) instruments. CONCLUSION: Costs and subcosts of RARC + ICUD vary significantly across European countries and are mainly dependent of hospital length-of-stay and operative time rather than robotic instrumentation. Decreasing length-of-stay and reducing operative time could help to decrease the cost of RARC and make it more widely accessible.