|Table of Contents|

A comparative study of effectivity of transperineal cognitive fusion-targeted prostate biopsy diagnosis based on multi-parameter MRI(PI-RADS) versus systemic biopsy

Journal Of Modern Oncology[ISSN:1672-4992/CN:61-1415/R]

Issue:
2023 03
Page:
523-528
Research Field:
Publishing date:

Info

Title:
A comparative study of effectivity of transperineal cognitive fusion-targeted prostate biopsy diagnosis based on multi-parameter MRI(PI-RADS) versus systemic biopsy
Author(s):
ZHAO Xu1; 2; XING Zhengyu3; HUO Richa1; ZUO Yupeng1; GAO Feng1; ZHANG Qiang1
1.Department of Urology，Central Clinical Medical College，Baotou Medical College，Inner Monglia Baotou 014040，China；2.Department of Urology，Shandong Public Health Clinical Center，Shandong Jinan 250000，China;3.Department of Medical Imaging，Baotou Central Hospital，Inner Monglia Baotou 014040，China.
Keywords:
multi-parameter MRI; PI-RADS; cognitive fusion; transperineal prostate biopsy; prostate cancer
PACS:
R737.25
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.1672-4992.2023.03.026
Abstract:
Objective:To explore the effectivity and safety differences of transperineal cognitive fusion-targeted prostate biopsy based on multi-parameter MRI(PI-RADS) and systemic biopsy.Method：Patients with suspected prostate cancer admitted to our hospital from January 2018 to February 2021 who making transperineal prostate biopsy were selected.All patients make multi-parameter MRI scan before biopsy,and the suspected lesions in the prostate were scored according to PI-RADS.Patients were randomly divided into transperineal cognitive fusion-targeted prostate biopsy based on multi-parameter MRI(PI-RADS) group(test group) and systemic prostate biopsy group(control group).The positive rate,pathological information and complications of the two groups were analyzed.The test group was further divided into cognitive fusion-targeted biopsy group(TB group) and systemic biopsy group(SB group) according to the biopsy procedure,and the differences of the two methods in pathological information after puncture were compared.Results：Eighty patients were eventually enrolled in this study.There was no difference in the overall positive rate of prostate cancer between the test group and the control group,but the positive rate of clinically significant prostate cancer in the test group was higher than that in the control group(P＜0.05).The test group could obtain more information such as positive needle ratio,tumor tissue ratio and Gleason score(P＜0.05).In the test group,there was no statistical difference in the positive rate of prostate cancer between TB group and SB group(P＞0.05),but TB group could obtain higher ratio of positive needle,tumor tissue ratio and Gleason score(P＜0.05).There was no statistical significance in postoperative complications between the test group and the control group(P＞0.05).Conclusion：Compared with systemic biopsy,transperineal cognitive fusion-targeted prostate biopsy based on multi-parameter MRI(PI-RADS) can improve the positive rate of clinically significant prostate cancer,and obtain a higher proportion of tumor tissue,Gleason score and positive needle number,and does not increase puncture complications,which has a higher clinical application value.

References:

[1]SIEGEL RL,MILLER KD,JEMAL A,et al.Cancer statistics,2020［J］.CA:A Cancer Journal for Clinicians,2020,70(1):7-30.
[2]COKER MA,GLASER ZA,GORDETSKY JB,et al.Targets missed:predictors of MRI-targeted biopsy failing to accurately localize prostate cancer found on systematic biopsy［J］.Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases,2018,21(4):549-555.
[3]OBERLIN DT,CASALINO DD,MILLER FH,et al.Diagnostic value of guided biopsies:Fusion and cognitive-registration magnetic resonance imaging versus conventional ultrasound biopsy of the prostate［J］.Urology,2016,92:75-79.
[4]WEINREB JC,BARENTSZ JO,CHOYKE PL,et al.PI-RADS prostate imaging-reporting and data system:2015,version 2［J］.European Urology,2016,69(1):16-40.
[5]FARIA R,SOARES MO,SPACKMAN E,et al.Optimising the diagnosis of prostate cancer in the era of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging:A cost-effectiveness analysis based on the prostate MR imaging study(PROMIS)［J］.European Urology,2018,73(1):23-30.
[6]DIANAT SS,CARTER HB,MACURA KJ.Magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy［J］.Magnetic Resonance Imaging Clinics of North America,2015,23(4):621-631.
[7]SONN GA,CHANG E,NATARAJAN S,et al.Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen［J］.European Urology,2014,65(4):809-815.
[8] LAI WJ,WANG HK,LIU HT,et al.Cognitive MRI-TRUS fusion-targeted prostate biopsy according to PI-RADS classification in patients with prior negative systematic biopsy results［J］.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association,2016,79(11):618-624.
[9]李德润,刘毅,李志华,等.磁共振与经直肠超声认知融合引导的经直肠前列腺靶向穿刺活检614例单中心临床研究［J］.生物医学工程学杂志,2020,37(2):225-229. LI DR,LIU Y,LI ZH,et al.Magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound cognitive fusion targeted biopsy onthe diagnosis of prostate cancer:a research of 614 cases in single center［J］.Journal of Biomedical Engineering,2020,37(2):225-229.
[10]PEPE P,GARUFI A,PRIOLO G,et al.Transperineal versus transrectal MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy:Detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer［J］.Clinical Genitourinary Cancer,2017,15(1):e33-e36.
[11] DROST FH,OSSES DF,NIEBOER D,et al.Prostate MRI,with or without MRI-targeted biopsy,and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer［J］.The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews,2019,4:CD012663.
[12] KAYANO PP,CARNEIRO A,CASTILHOT ML,et al.Comparison of Gleason upgrading rates in transrectal ultrasound systematic random biopsies versus US-MRI fusion biopsies for prostate cancer［J］.International Journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology,2018,44(6):1106-1113.
[13]MAZZONE E,STABILE A,SORCE G,et al.Age and gleason score upgrading between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy:Is this still true in the multiparametric resonance imaging era［J］.Urologic Oncology,2021,39(11):784.e1-784.e9.
[14]APFELBECK M,TRITSCHLER S,CLEVERT DA,et al.Postoperative change in Gleason score of prostate cancer in fusion targeted biopsy:a matched pair analysis［J］.Scandinavian Journal of Urology,2021,55(1):27-32.
[15]KASIVISVANATHAN V,RANNIKKO AS,BORGHI M,et al.MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis［J］.The New England Journal of Medicine,2018,378(19):1767-1777.
[16]VANDERLEEST M,CORNEL E,ISRAELB,et al.Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naive men with elevated prostate-specific antigen:A large prospective multicenter clinical study［J］.European Urology,2019,75(4):570-578.
[17]WANG L,WANG XF,ZHAO WF,et al.Surface-projection-based transperineal cognitive fusion targeted biopsy of the prostate:an original technique with a good cancer detection rate［J］.BMC Urology,2019,19(4):107.
[18] KULIS T,ZEKULIC T,ALDUK AM,et al.Targeted prostate biopsy using a cognitive fusion of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound in patients with previously negative systematic biopsies and non-suspicious digital rectal exam［J］.Croatian Medical Journal,2020,61(1):49-54.

Memo

Memo:
-
Last Update: 2022-12-30