Journals / Eurasian Journal of Medicine / 2022 / Cilt: 54 - Sayı: 1

Comparison of Prostate Biopsy Using Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients with Prostate Biopsy Indications

Pages
12–16
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

Conclusion: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging evaluated by experienced radiologists may be instructive of urologists and reduce the need for unnecessary biopsies.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: This article aims to evaluate the efficacy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging before standard tru-cut biopsy in making prostate cancer diagnosis.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: A total of 160 patients with prostate biopsy indications were prospectively evaluated between May 2017 and October 2018.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging evaluated by experienced radiologists may be instructive of urologists and reduce the need for unnecessary biopsies.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2017 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: This article aims to evaluate the efficacy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging before standard tru-cut biopsy in making prostate cancer diagnosis. Materials and Methods: A total of 160 patients with prostate biopsy indications were prospectively evaluated between May 2017 and October 2018. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was taken after obtaining a written informed consent from all patients. Cognitive transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy was performed based on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging results. Standard tru-cut biopsy was included to reduce false-negative rate. Statistical analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 20.0 software. Results: The mean age of the patients was 65.94 ± 7.90 (48-84) years. Around 19.37% of the patients had a specificity in the digital rectal exam. The mean prostate-specific antigen value of the patients with adenocarcinoma was 42.1 ng/mL and it was 10.2 ng/mL in patients with benign prostate hyperplasia. It was observed that the prostate-specific antigen values in prostatic adenocarcinomas were significantly higher than those in benign prostate hyperplasia (P < .001). The results of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and the biopsy were 100% similar in terms of zones in patients with adenocarcinoma. All of the biopsy results of the patients who were evaluated to have normal prostate tissue in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging were evaluated as benign prostate hyperplasia; on the other hand, 13.6% of PI-RADS 2 lesions, 14% of PI-RADS 3 lesions, 31.8% of PI-RADS 4 lesions, and 85.7% of PI-RADS 5 lesions were determined to be adenocarcinoma. It was observed that the prevalence of adenocarcinoma increased as the risk elevated in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (P < .001). Conclusion: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging evaluated by experienced radiologists may be instructive of urologists and reduce the need for unnecessary biopsies.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZKAYA, F., DEMİRDÖĞEN, Ş. O., YAPANOĞLU, T., ALTAY, M. S., BEDİR, F., KOCATÜRK, H., CİNİSLİOĞLU, A. E., YILMAZ, S. (2022). Comparison of Prostate Biopsy Using Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients with Prostate Biopsy Indications. Eurasian Journal of Medicine, Cilt: 54 - Sayı: 1, 12–16. https://ajindex.com/articles/508796

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Barsouk A, Padala SA, Vakiti A, et al. Epidemiology, staging and management of prostate cancer. Med Sci (Basel). 2020
  2. 8(3). [CrossRef] 2. Rawla P. Epidemiology of prostate cancer. World J Oncol. 2019
  3. 10(2):63-89. [CrossRef] 3. Xiang J, Yan H, Li J, Wang X, Chen H, Zheng X. Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2019
  4. 17(1):31. [CrossRef] 4. Hugosson J, Carlsson S, Aus G, et al. Mortality results from the Göteborg randomised population-based prostate-cancer screening trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010
  5. 11(8):725-732. [CrossRef] 5. Norberg M, Egevad L, Holmberg L, Sparén P, Norlén BJ, Busch C. The sextant protocol for ultrasound-guided core biopsies of the prostate underestimates the presence of cancer. Urology. 1997
  6. 50(4):562-566. [CrossRef] 6. Mostofi FK, Sesterhenn IA, Davis CJ, Jr. Prostatic carcinoma: problems in the interpretation of prostatic biopsies. Hum Pathol. 1992
  7. 23(3):223- 241. [CrossRef] 7. Anastasiadis AG, Lichy MP, Nagele U, et al. MRIguided biopsy of the prostate increases diagnostic performance in men with elevated or increasing PSA levels after previous negative TRUS biopsies. Eur Urol. 2006
  8. 50(4):738-748. [CrossRef] 8. Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, et al. Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology. 2011
  9. 261(1):46-66. [CrossRef] 9. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012
  10. 22(4):746-757. [CrossRef] 10. Bomers JG, Barentsz JO. Standardization of multiparametric prostate MR imaging using PIRADS. BioMed Res Int. 2014
  11. 431680. [CrossRef] 11. Miah S, Hosking-Jervis F, Connor MJ, et al. A multicentre analysis of the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer following transperineal image-fusion targeted and nontargeted systematic prostate biopsy in men at risk. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020
  12. 3(3):262-269. [CrossRef] 12. Latifoltojar A, Appayya MB, Barrett T, Punwani S. Similarities and differences between Likert and PIRADS v2.1 scores of prostate multiparametric MRI: a pictorial review of histology-validated cases. Clin Radiol. 2019
  13. 74(11):895.e1-895.e15. [CrossRef] 13. Melia J, Moss S, Johns L, Rates of prostate-specific antigen testing in general practice in England and Wales in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients: a cross-sectional study. BJU Int. 2004
  14. 94(1):51-56. [CrossRef] 14. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, W