Comparison of two different approaches of MRI-targeted biopsy on the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2019.05.002

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To compare the diagnosis accuracy of clinically significant prostate cancer by two different MRI-targeted biopsy approaches.

Methods

A total of 45 men from Beijing United Family Hospital undergoing cognitive biopsy and 87 men from Beijing Hospital undergoing in-bore biopsy were included in the study from 2015 to 2017. The patients age, PSA, prostate volume, PI-RADS, overall prostate detection rate and clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate were compared and analyzed.

Results

The age in in-bore biopsy group was higher than cognitive biopsy group. There was no significant difference in PSA, prostate volume, and distribution of PI-RADS between the two groups. The overall prostate cancer detection rate was 52.9% by in-bore biopsy and 31.1% by cognitive biopsy (P<0.05). The clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate was 29.9% by in-bore biopsy and 20.0% by cognitive biopsy (P>0.05), respectively.

Conclusions

Both biopsies had good performance in clinically significant prostate cancer detection. But in-bore biopsy showed remarkably higher overall prostate cancer detection rate compared with cognitive biopsy.

Key words: MRI-targeted biopsy, Prostate carcinoma, Prostate biopsy, Diagnosis

Kai Zhang, Zhipeng Zhang, Gang Zhu, Ming Liu. Comparison of two different approaches of MRI-targeted biopsy on the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer[J]. Chinese Journal of Endourology(Electronic Edition), 2019, 13(05): 293-296.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhqjmnmwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2019.05.002

https://zhqjmnmwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2019/V13/I05/293

Figures/Tables 3

References 17

[1]	Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics, 2012[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2015, 65(2): 87-108.
[2]	Diaz de Leon A, Costa D, Pedrosa I. Role of multiparametric mr imaging in malignancies of the urogenital tract[J]. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am, 2016, 24(1): 187-204.
[3]	冼土增，张俊夫，罗飞, 等. 多参数磁共振成像联合四基因模型提高前列腺癌早期诊断效能的临床研究[J/CD]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2018, 12(3): 149-153.
[4]	Zhang K, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ. Prostate cancer screening in Europe and Asia[J]. Asian J Urol, 2017, 4(2): 86-95.
[5]	Wong MC, Goggins WB, Wang HH, et al. Global incidence and mortality for prostate cancer: analysis of temporal patterns and trends in 36 countries[J]. Eur Urol, 2016, 70(5): 862-874.
[6]	Center MM, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulent J, et al. International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates[J]. Eur Urol, 2012, 61(6): 1079-1092.
[7]	Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012[J]. Eur Radiol, 2012, 22(4): 746-757.
[8]	Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Eur Urol, 2015, 68(3): 438-450.
[9]	Wysock JS, Mendhiratta N, Zattoni F, et al. Predictive value of negative 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate on 12-core biopsy results[J]. BJU Int, 2016, 118(4): 515-520.
[10]	Pokorny MR, de Rooij M, Duncan E, et al. Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies[J]. Eur Urol, 2014, 66(1): 22-29.
[11]	Haffner J, Lemaitre L, Puech P, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection[J]. BJU Int, 2011, 108(8 Pt 2): E171-178.
[12]	Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al, Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study[J]. N Engl J Med, 2009, 360(13): 1320-1328.
[13]	Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Prostate-cancer mortality at 11 years of follow-up[J]. N Engl J Med, 2012, 366(11): 981-990.
[14]	Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ. Roobol, et al. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up[J]. Lancet, 2014, 384(9959): 2027-2035.
[15]	Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, Hooft L, 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? [J]. Eur Urol, 2017, 71(4): 517-531.
[16]	Chen R, Ren S, Yiu MK, et al. Prostate cancer in Asia: A collaborative report[J]. Asian J Urol, 2014, 1(1): 15-29.
[17]	Ito K. Prostate cancer in Asian men[J]. Nat Rev Urol, 2014，11(4): 197-212.

组别	例数	年龄（岁，±s）	PSA（μg/L，±s）	体积（ml，±s）	PI-RADS [例（%）]
组别	例数	年龄（岁，±s）	PSA（μg/L，±s）	体积（ml，±s）	2分	3分	4分	5分	≥3分
认知融合穿刺组	45	60.0±8.0	11.3±15.5	49.3±21.9	9(20.0)	14(31.1)	15(33.3)	7(15.6)	36(80.0)
MRI引导穿刺组	87	69.7±7.0	7.2±50	48.2±21.1	7(8.0)	25(28.7)	47(54.0)	8(9.2)	80(92.0)
统计值	?	t=-7.165	t=1.702	t=0.289	χ²=1.636
P值	?	<0.001	0.095	0.773	0.201

组别	例数	年龄（岁，±s）	PSA（μg/L，±s）	体积（ml，±s）	PI-RADS [例（%）]
组别	例数	年龄（岁，±s）	PSA（μg/L，±s）	体积（ml，±s）	2分	3分	4分	5分	≥3分
认知融合穿刺组	45	60.0±8.0	11.3±15.5	49.3±21.9	9(20.0)	14(31.1)	15(33.3)	7(15.6)	36(80.0)
MRI引导穿刺组	87	69.7±7.0	7.2±50	48.2±21.1	7(8.0)	25(28.7)	47(54.0)	8(9.2)	80(92.0)
统计值	?	t=-7.165	t=1.702	t=0.289	χ²=1.636
P值	?	<0.001	0.095	0.773	0.201

组别	例数	前列腺癌检出率	有临床意义前列腺癌数量检出率
认知融合穿刺组	45	14（31.1）	9（20.0）
MRI引导穿刺组	87	46（52.9）	26（29.9）
χ²值	?	5.665	1.580
P值	?	0.017	0.209

组别	例数	前列腺癌检出率	有临床意义前列腺癌数量检出率
认知融合穿刺组	45	14（31.1）	9（20.0）
MRI引导穿刺组	87	46（52.9）	26（29.9）
χ²值	?	5.665	1.580
P值	?	0.017	0.209

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export