Experiences of transperineal prostate biopsy in single center (report of 2 722 patients)

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2021.06.002

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To retrospectively describe the transperineal prostate puncture in our center, explore the key factors affecting the positive rate of puncture, and compare the differences between simple systematic puncture and systematic combined targeted puncture.

Methods

A total of 2 722 patients who underwent transperineal prostate puncture in our center from June 2017 to December 2019 were included. Measurement and enumeration data were compared using t tests and chi-square tests, and logistic regression models were used to analyze the key factors affecting the positive rate of puncture.

Results

The average age was (67±8) years, the average BMI was (24.3±3.0) kg/m², and the median PSA was 11.59 ng/ml. 190 patients (6.9%, 190/2 722) had a prior puncture. There were 933 patients who underwent systematic and targeted puncture (34.3%, 933/2 722). Postoperative major complications occurred in 60 patients (2.20%, 60/2 722). Pathological results showed that 1 439 cases were definitely diagnosed as prostatic acinar adenocarcinoma, and the positive rate of puncture was 52.8%(1 439/2 722). Logistic regression analysis showed that age >70 years (OR=3.67, 2.55-5.30, P<0.01), PSA >20 ng/ml (OR=35.83, 19.02-67.48, P<0.01) and targeted combined systematic puncture (OR=2.89, 2.39-3.48, P<0.01) were the key factors for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Further comparison of the difference between systematic puncture alone and systematic combined targeted puncture revealed that the number of patients with combined targeted PSA <20 ng/ml was significantly higher than that in the systematic puncture alone group (83.9% vs 65.7%, P<0.01). The proportion of patients with previous puncture history was higher in the combined targeted group (12.2% vs 4.2%, P<0.01). The combined targeting group significantly increased the positive rate of puncture (64.0% vs 47.1%, P<0.01).

Conclusion

Transperineal prostate puncture is safe and effective. Age, high PSA levels, and targeted paracentesis are key factors in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Multi-parameter MR-guided targeted puncture can improve the positive rate of puncture, especially under the premise of low PSA and repeated puncture, multi-parameter MR-guided targeted puncture is recommended..

Key words: Prostate cancer, Diopsy

Min Qu, Husheng Li, Haifeng Wang, Yan Wang, Xu Gao. Experiences of transperineal prostate biopsy in single center (report of 2 722 patients)[J]. Chinese Journal of Endourology(Electronic Edition), 2021, 15(06): 458-462.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhqjmnmwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3253.2021.06.002

https://zhqjmnmwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2021/V15/I06/458

Figures/Tables 2

References 18

[1]	Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics 2020 [J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2020, 70(1): 7-30.
[2]	顾秀瑛, 郑荣寿, 张思维, 等. 2000-2014年中国肿瘤登记地区前列腺癌发病趋势及年龄变化分析 [J]. 中华预防医学杂志, 2018, 52(6): 586
[3]	Kaufman JJ, Ljung BM, Walther P. et al. Aspiration biopsy of prostate [J]. Urology, 1982, 19(6):587-591.
[4]	Xiang J, Yan H, Li J, et al. Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. World J Surg Oncol, 2019, 17(1): 31
[5]	Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y, et al. Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy[J]. J Urol, 2013, 189(1): S12-S17.
[6]	Ljung BM. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of the prostate gland: technique and review of the literature[J]. Semin Urol, 1985, 3(1): 18-26.
[7]	Lee F. Transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis, staging, guided needle biopsy, and screening for prostate cancer [J]. Prog Clin Biol Res, 1987, 237: 73-109.
[8]	Yagci AB, Ozari N, Aybek Z, et al. The value of diffusion-weighted MRI for prostate cancer detection and localization[J]. Diagn Interv Radiol, 2011, 17(2): 130-134.
[9]	Loy LM, Lim GH, Leow JJ, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound guided fusion biopsy of prostate for cancer detection-Comparing transrectal with transperineal approaches[J]. Urol Oncol, 2020, 38(8): 650-660.
[10]	Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer 2020[J]. Eur Urol, 2021, 79(2): 243-282.
[11]	van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israel B. 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]. Eur Urol, 2019, 75(4): 570-578.
[12]	Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study[J]. Lancet, 2017, 389(10071): 815-822.
[13]	Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. MRI-Targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis [J]. N Engl J Med, 2018, 378(19): 1767-1777.
[14]	Rouviere O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, et al. 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[J]. Lancet Oncol, 2019, 20(1): 100-109.
[15]	Pilie PG, Johnson AM, Hanson KL, et al. Germline genetic variants in men with prostate cancer and one or more additional cancers [J]. Cancer, 123(20): 3925-3932.
[16]	Bell KJ, Del Mar C, Wright G, et al. Prevalence of incidental prostate cancer: A systematic review of autopsy studies[J]. Int J Cancer, 2015, 137(7): 1749-1757.
[17]	Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ, et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter[J]. N Engl J Med, 2004, 350(22): 2239-2246.
[18]	Chen R, Zhou LQ, Cai XB, et al. Percent free prostate-specific antigen is effective to predict prostate biopsy outcome in Chinese men with prostate-specific antigen between 10.1 and 20.0 ng/ml[J]. Asian J Androl, 2015, 17(6): 1017-1021.

		OR（95%CI）	P值
年龄(岁)
	≤55	1
	55~70	2.05(1.44~2.92)
	> 70	3.67(2.55~5.30)	<0.01
PSA(ng/ml)
	≤40	1
	4~10	3.96(2.16~7.29)
	10~20	05.96(3.23~11.00)
	> 20	35.83(19.02~67.48)0	<0.01
穿刺模式
	单纯系统	1
	联合靶向	2.89(2.39~3.48)	<0.01

		OR（95%CI）	P值
年龄(岁)
	≤55	1
	55~70	2.05(1.44~2.92)
	> 70	3.67(2.55~5.30)	<0.01
PSA(ng/ml)
	≤40	1
	4~10	3.96(2.16~7.29)
	10~20	05.96(3.23~11.00)
	> 20	35.83(19.02~67.48)0	<0.01
穿刺模式
	单纯系统	1
	联合靶向	2.89(2.39~3.48)	<0.01

组别	例数	年龄[岁，(±s)]	BMI[kg/m²，(±s)]	PSA(ng/ml)穿刺阳性[例(%)]				既往穿刺史[例(%)]		穿刺模式[例(%)]		穿刺结果[例(%)]		csPCa[例(%)]
组别	例数	年龄[岁，(±s)]	BMI[kg/m²，(±s)]	≥4	4~10	10~20	>20	是	否	自由手	模板	阳性	阴性	是	否
单纯系统组	1 789	67.4±8.4	24.2±3.0	31(1.7)	658(36.8)	486(27.2)	614(34.3)	76(4.2)	1713(95.8)	1333(74.5)	456(25.5)	842(47.1)	947(52.9)	740(87.9)	102(12.1)
联合靶向组	0933	67.4±8.1	24.4±2.9	52(5.5)	411(44.1)	320(34.3)	150(16.1)	114(12.2)	819(87.8)	502(53.8)	431(46.2)	597(64.0)	336(36.0)	533(89.3)	64(10.7)
P值		0.954	0.258	<0.01				<0.01		<0.01		<0.01		0.376

组别	例数	年龄[岁，(±s)]	BMI[kg/m²，(±s)]	PSA(ng/ml)穿刺阳性[例(%)]				既往穿刺史[例(%)]		穿刺模式[例(%)]		穿刺结果[例(%)]		csPCa[例(%)]
组别	例数	年龄[岁，(±s)]	BMI[kg/m²，(±s)]	≥4	4~10	10~20	>20	是	否	自由手	模板	阳性	阴性	是	否
单纯系统组	1 789	67.4±8.4	24.2±3.0	31(1.7)	658(36.8)	486(27.2)	614(34.3)	76(4.2)	1713(95.8)	1333(74.5)	456(25.5)	842(47.1)	947(52.9)	740(87.9)	102(12.1)
联合靶向组	0933	67.4±8.1	24.4±2.9	52(5.5)	411(44.1)	320(34.3)	150(16.1)	114(12.2)	819(87.8)	502(53.8)	431(46.2)	597(64.0)	336(36.0)	533(89.3)	64(10.7)
P值		0.954	0.258	<0.01				<0.01		<0.01		<0.01		0.376

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export