[Prospective comparison of cognitive and mpMR/US fusion biopsy for prostate cancer detection].

INTRODUCTION: According to the recommendations of the European Association of Urology the presence of a suspicious lesion on MRI is an indication for both primary and secondary MR-targeted biopsies. At the same time, the Russian Society of Urologists recommends to perform mpMR/US fusion biopsy only in patients with a prior negative biopsy. In clinical practice, mpMR/US fusion and cognitive biopsies are the most frequently performed. However, when comparing them, contradictory data on detection of clinically significant prostate cancer is obtained. OBJECTIVE: to compare the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer performing cognitive and mpMR/US fusion biopsies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Inclusion criteria: PSA >2 ng/mL and/or a positive DRE, and/or a suspicious lesion on TRUS, and PI-RADSv2.1 lesion more or equal 3. At first, "unblinded" urologist performed a transperineal mpMR/ultrasound fusion and saturation biopsy. Then "blinded" urologist obtained transrectal cognitive biopsy Clinically significant cancer was defined as ISUP more or equal 2. RESULTS: We enrolled 96 patients. Median age was 63 years, prostate volume - 47 cm3 and PSA - 6.82 ng/mL. MpMR/US fusion and cognitive biopsies were comparable in regard to the detection rate of clinically significant (32.3% vs 25.0%; p=0.264), clinically insignificant cancer (25.0% and 26.0%; p=0.869) and overall detection rate (57.3% and 51%;p=0.385). Both biopsies missed clinically significant cancer with equal frequency (5.2%; p=0.839). Histological efficacy also was comparable. The number of positive cores between mpMR/US fusion and cognitive biopsy was equal (34.1% and 31.1% respectively; p= 0.415). At the same time, no statistically significant difference was found with respect to maximum cancer core length (53.1% vs 47.7%, respectively; p=0.293). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that both cognitive and mpMR/US fusion biopsies are equally accurate diagnostic methods for clinically significant prostate cancer detection, thus their wider introduction into clinical practice is necessary.