Transperineal vs transrectal magnetic resonance and ultrasound image fusion prostate biopsy: a pair-matched comparison.

The objective of this study was to compare transperineal (TP) versus transrectal (TR) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy (PBx). Consecutive men who underwent prostate MRI followed by a systematic biopsy. Additional target biopsies were performed from Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PIRADS) 3-5 lesions. Men who underwent TP PBx were matched 1:2 with a synchronous cohort undergoing TR PBx by PSA, Prostate volume (PV) and PIRADS score. Endpoint of the study was the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa; Grade Group ≥ 2). Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed. Results were considered statistically significant if p < 0.05. Overall, 504 patients met the inclusion criteria. A total of 168 TP PBx were pair-matched to 336 TR PBx patients. Baseline demographics and imaging characteristics were similar between the groups. Per patient, the CSPCa detection was 2.1% vs 6.3% (p = 0.4) for PIRADS 1-2, and 59% vs 60% (p = 0.9) for PIRADS 3-5, on TP vs TR PBx, respectively. Per lesion, the CSPCa detection for PIRADS 3 (21% vs 16%; p = 0.4), PIRADS 4 (51% vs 44%; p = 0.8) and PIRADS 5 (76% vs 84%; p = 0.3) was similar for TP vs TR PBx, respectively. However, the TP PBx showed a longer maximum cancer core length (11 vs 9 mm; p = 0.02) and higher cancer core involvement (83% vs 65%; p < 0.001) than TR PBx. Independent predictors for CSPCa detection were age, PSA, PV, abnormal digital rectal examination findings, and PIRADS 3-5. Our study demonstrated transperineal MRI/TRUS fusion PBx provides similar CSPCa detection, with larger prostate cancer core length and percent of core involvement, than transrectal PBx.

Multiparametric ultrasound of prostate: role in prostate cancer diagnosis.

Recent advances in ultrasonography (US) technology established modalities, such as Doppler-US, HistoScanning, contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS), elastography, and micro-ultrasound. The early results of these US modalities have been promising, although there are limitations including the need for specialized equipment, inconsistent results, lack of standardizations, and external validation. In this review, we identified studies evaluating multiparametric ultrasonography (mpUS), the combination of multiple US modalities, for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis. In the past 5 years, a growing number of studies have shown that use of mpUS resulted in high PCa and clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa) detection performance using radical prostatectomy histology as the reference standard. Recent studies have demonstrated the role mpUS in improving detection of CSPCa and guidance for prostate biopsy and therapy. Furthermore, some aspects including lower costs, real-time imaging, applicability for some patients who have contraindication for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and availability in the office setting are clear advantages of mpUS. Interobserver agreement of mpUS was overall low; however, this limitation can be improved using standardized and objective evaluation systems such as the machine learning model. Whether mpUS outperforms MRI is unclear. Multicenter randomized controlled trials directly comparing mpUS and multiparametric MRI are warranted.