全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

Comparison of Cognitive Registration Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Targeted Biopsy of Prostate to Systematic 12-Core Biopsy: A Retrospective, Multicentre Study

DOI: 10.4236/oju.2024.147040, PP. 397-406

Keywords: Prostate Cancer, Multiparametric MRI, Targeted Biopsy, Cognitive Fusion, Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

Introduction: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the third most prevalent cancer among Malaysian males, often diagnosed at advanced stages, leading to suboptimal outcomes. While transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy (TRUS-SB) is the primary diagnostic method, prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is gaining popularity in identifying suspicious lesions. This study addresses the lack of comprehensive investigations into the efficacy of cognitive registration TRUS targeted biopsy (COG-TB) compared to conventional TRUS-SB, considering the resource limitations of the Malaysian healthcare system. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in two Malaysian healthcare facilities. 116 adult patients with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of more than 4 ng/mL who underwent both COG-TB and TRUS-SB between October 2020 and March 2022 were included. Primary outcomes were cancer detection rate and histopathological outcomes, including Gleason score. Results: COG-TB showed a higher overall cancer detection rate (50%) compared to TRUS-SB (44%). Clinically significant cancer detection rates were similar between COG-TB and TRUS-SB (37.1%). Further analysis revealed that both COG-TB and TRUS-SB detected clinically significant cancer in 30.2% of patients, did not detect it in 56.0%, and had conflicting findings in 16 patients (p < 0.001). COG-TB detected more Gleason score 6 (15 versus 8) and Gleason score 8 (5 versus 3) cases than TRUS-SB. However, COG-TB also detected more insignificant prostate cancers (12.9%) compared to TRUS-SB (6.9%). Conclusion: COG-TB and TRUS-SB have comparable detection rates for clinically significant prostate cancer, with COG-TB showing a higher tendency to detect insignificant prostate cancer. Further studies comparing these methods are warranted.

References

[1]  National Cancer Institute MoHM (2019) Malaysia National Cancer Registry Report (MNCR) 2012-2016. Ministry of Health Malaysia.
[2]  Lim, J., Malek, R., Jr, S., Toh, C.C., Sundram, M., Woo, S.Y.Y., et al. (2021) Prostate Cancer in Multi-Ethnic Asian Men: Real-World Experience in the Malaysia Prostate Cancer (M-CaP) Study. Cancer Medicine, 10, 8020-8028.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.4319
[3]  Tyson, M.D., Arora, S.S., Scarpato, K.R. and Barocas, D. (2016) Magnetic Resonance-Ultrasound Fusion Prostate Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations, 34, 326-332.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.03.005
[4]  Lai, W., Wang, H., Liu, H., Park, B.K., Shen, S., Lin, T., et al. (2016) Cognitive MRI-TRUS Fusion-Targeted Prostate Biopsy According to PI-RADS Classification in Patients with Prior Negative Systematic Biopsy Results. Journal of the Chinese Medical Association, 79, 618-624.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcma.2016.05.004
[5]  Puech, P., Ouzzane, A., Gaillard, V., Betrouni, N., Renard, B., Villers, A., et al. (2014) Multiparametric MRI-Targeted TRUS Prostate Biopsies Using Visual Registration. BioMed Research International, 2014, Article ID: 819360.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/819360
[6]  Puech, P., Rouvière, O., Renard-Penna, R., Villers, A., Devos, P., Colombel, M., et al. (2013) Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Multiparametric MR-Targeted Biopsy with Cognitive and Transrectal US-MR Fusion Guidance versus Systematic Biopsy—Prospective Multicenter Study. Radiology, 268, 461-469.
https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13121501
[7]  van der Leest, M., Cornel, E., Israël, B., Hendriks, R., Padhani, A.R., Hoogenboom, M., et al. (2019) Head-to-Head Comparison of Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Prostate Biopsy versus Multiparametric Prostate Resonance Imaging with Subsequent Magnetic Resonance-Guided Biopsy in Biopsy-Naïve Men with Elevated Prostate-Specific Antigen: A Large Prospective Multicenter Clinical Study. European Urology, 75, 570-578.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023
[8]  Siddiqui, M.M., Rais-Bahrami, S., Truong, H., Stamatakis, L., Vourganti, S., Nix, J., et al. (2013) Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound-Fusion Biopsy Significantly Upgrades Prostate Cancer versus Systematic 12-Core Transrectal Ultrasound Biopsy. European Urology, 64, 713-719.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.059
[9]  Drost, F.H., Osses, D.F., Nieboer, D., Steyerberg, E.W., Bangma, C.H., Roobol, M.J., et al. (2019) Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-Targeted Biopsy, and Systematic Biopsy for Detecting Prostate Cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2019, CD012663.
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd012663.pub2
[10]  Lim, L., Tan, G., Zainuddin, Z., Fam, X., Goh, E., Syaris, O., et al. (2020) Prospective Evaluation of Using Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Cognitive Fusion Prostate Biopsy Compared to the Standard Systematic 12-Core Biopsy in the Detection of Prostate Cancer. Urology Annals, 12, 276-282.
https://doi.org/10.4103/ua.ua_98_19
[11]  Radiology ACo (2019) Prostate Imaging—Reporting and Data System.
[12]  Aphinives, C., Nawapun, S. and Tungnithiboon, C. (2023) Diagnostic Accuracy of MRI-Based PSA Density for Detection of Prostate Cancer among the Thai Population. African Journal of Urology, 29, Article No. 4.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12301-023-00335-9
[13]  Cornford, P., Vice-chair, D.T., Bergh, R.C.N.V.D., Oort, I.M.V., Ploussard, G., Roberts, M., et al. (2024) EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer.
https://d56bochluxqnz.cloudfront.net/documents/full-guideline/EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG-Guidelines-on-Prostate-Cancer-2024_2024-04-09-132035_ypmy_2024-04-16-122605_lqpk.pdf
[14]  Wegelin, O., Exterkate, L., Van der Leest, M., Kummer, J.A., Vreuls, W., De Bruin, P.C., et al. (2019) The FUTURE Trial: A Multicenter Randomised Controlled Trial on Target Biopsy Techniques Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in Patients with Prior Negative Biopsies. European Urology, 75, 582-590.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.040
[15]  Moore, C.M., Robertson, N.L., Arsanious, N., Middleton, T., Villers, A., Klotz, L., et al. (2013) Image-Guided Prostate Biopsy Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Derived Targets: A Systematic Review. European Urology, 63, 125-140.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.06.004
[16]  Rouvière, O., Puech, P., Renard-Penna, R., Claudon, M., Roy, C., Mège-Lechevallier, F., et al. (2019) Use of Prostate Systematic and Targeted Biopsy on the Basis of Multiparametric MRI in Biopsy-Naive Patients (MRI-FIRST): A Prospective, Multicentre, Paired Diagnostic Study. The Lancet Oncology, 20, 100-109.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30569-2
[17]  Oerther, B., Engel, H., Bamberg, F., Sigle, A., Gratzke, C. and Benndorf, M. (2021) Cancer Detection Rates of the Pi-Radsv2.1 Assessment Categories: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Lesion Level and Patient Level. Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, 25, 256-263.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-021-00417-1

Full-Text

comments powered by Disqus

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133

WeChat 1538708413