Journals / Turkish Journal of Urology / 2021 / Cilt: 47 - Sayı: 1

Effect of lesion diameter and prostate volume on prostate cancer detection rate of magnetic resonance imaging: Transrectalultrasonography-guided fusion biopsies using cognitive targeting

Pages
22–29
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusions: Clinicians should be very careful when they prefer cognitive targeted prostatic biopsy in patients with periferal zone lesions less than 10 mm and with prostate volumes greater than 30 mL, because of significantly low csPCa detection rates

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of prostate volume and lesion size on the clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection rates of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsies, performed by a cognitive targeting method for sampling peripheral zone lesions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and methods: We retrospectively enrolled 219 consecutive patients, who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with a 3-T scanner and had peripheral zone lesions suspected for prostate cancer.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusions: Clinicians should be very careful when they prefer cognitive targeted prostatic biopsy in patients with periferal zone lesions less than 10 mm and with prostate volumes greater than 30 mL, because of significantly low csPCa detection rates
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of prostate volume and lesion size on the clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection rates of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsies, performed by a cognitive targeting method for sampling peripheral zone lesions. Material and methods: We retrospectively enrolled 219 consecutive patients, who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with a 3-T scanner and had peripheral zone lesions suspected for prostate cancer. All of these patients underwent combined cognitive targeted biopsy of suspicious lesions and TRUS-guided systematic biopsy. The detection rates of csPCa according to different lesion diameters (<5 mm, 5–9.9 mm, and ≥10 mm) and prostate volumes (<30 mL, 30–49.9 mL, 50–79.9 mL, and ≥80 mL) were calculated per lesion basis. In addition, subgroup analysis of csPCa detection rates was performed according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System scores of lesions. Results: The csPCa detection rates according to lesion diameters <5 mm, 5–9.9 mm, and ≥10 mm were 4%, 9.8%, and 33.1%, respectively, and were significantly lower for lesions <10 mm (p<0.001). The csPCa detection rates were 61.5%, 24.1%, 16.2%, and 6.9%, respectively, for prostate volumes <30 mL, 30–49.9 mL, 50–79.9 mL, and ≥80 mL, and were significantly higher for prostate volumes <30 mL (p<0.001). Conclusions: Clinicians should be very careful when they prefer cognitive targeted prostatic biopsy in patients with periferal zone lesions less than 10 mm and with prostate volumes greater than 30 mL, because of significantly low csPCa detection rates

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZDEN, E., AKPINAR, Ç., İBİŞ, M. A., KUBİLAY, E., ERDEN, A., YAMAN, Ö. (2021). Effect of lesion diameter and prostate volume on prostate cancer detection rate of magnetic resonance imaging: Transrectalultrasonography-guided fusion biopsies using cognitive targeting. Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 47 - Sayı: 1, 22–29. https://ajindex.com/articles/413265

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Barrett T, Haider MA. The Emerging Role of MRI in Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance and Ongoing Challenges. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017
  2. [Crossref] 2. Hu Y, Ahmed HU, Carter T, Arumainayagam N, Lecornet E, Barzell W, et al. A biopsy simulation study to assess the accuracy of several transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-biopsy strategies compared with template prostate mapping biopsies in patients who have undergone radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2012
  3. [Crossref] 3. Venderink W, van Luijtelaar A, Bomers JG, van der Leest M, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, Barentsz JO, et al. Results of targeted biopsy in men with magnetic resonance imaging lesions classified equivocal, likely or highly likely to be clinically significant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2018
  4. [Crossref] 4. Baco E, Rud E, Eri LM, Moen G, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A, et al. A Randomized Controlled Trial To Assess and Compare the Outcomes of Two-core Prostate Biopsy Guided by Fused Magnetic Resonance and Transrectal Ultrasound Images and Traditional 12- core Systematic Biopsy. Eur Urol 2016
  5. [Crossref] 5. Baco E, Ukimura O, Rud E, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A, Aron M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-transectal ultrasound imagefusion biopsies accurately characterize the index tumor: correlation with step-sectioned radical prostatectomy specimens in 135 patients. Eur Urol 2015
  6. [Crossref] 6. Mariotti GC, Costa DN, Pedrosa I, Falsarella PM, Martins T, Roehrborn CG, et al. Magnetic resonance/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy of the prostate compared to systematic 12-core biopsy for the diagnosis and characterization of prostate cancer: multi-institutional retrospective analysis of 389 patients. Urol Oncol 2016
  7. e9-416.e14. [Crossref] 7. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 2016
  8. [Crossref] 8. Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, Hooft L, Ruud Bosch JLH, Reitsma HB, Barentsz JO, et al. Comparing Three Different Techniques for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsies: A Systematic Review of In-bore versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound fusion versus Cognitive Registration. Is There a Preferred Technique? Eur Urol 2017
  9. [Crossref] 9. Marra G, Ploussard G, Futterer J, Valerio M
  10. EAU-YAU Prostate Cancer Working Party. Controversies in MR targeted biopsy: alone or combined, cognitive versus software-based f