» Articles » PMID: 29463177

The Combination of Targeted and Systematic Prostate Biopsies is the Best Protocol for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer

Abstract

Objective: Compared with standard systematic transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies (SBx), targeted biopsies (TBx) using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/TRUS fusion could increase the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa-s) and reduce non-significant PCa (PCa-ns). This study aimed to compare the performance of the two approaches.

Materials And Methods: A prospective, single-center study was conducted on all consecutive patients with PCa suspicion who underwent prebiopsy multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) using the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS). All patients underwent mpMRI/TRUS fusion TBx (two to four cores/target) using UroStation™ (Koelis, Grenoble, France) and SBx (10-12 cores) during the same session. PCa-s was defined as a maximal positive core length ≥4 mm or Gleason score ≥7.

Results: The study included 191 patients (at least one suspicious lesion: PI-RADS ≥3). PCa was detected in 55.5% (106/191) of the cases. The overall PCa detection rate and the PCa-s detection rate were not significantly higher in TBx alone versus SBx (44.5% vs 46.1%, p = .7, and 38.2% vs 33.5%, p = .2, respectively). Combined TBx and SBx diagnosed significantly more PCa-s than SBx alone (45% vs 33.5%, p = .02). PCa-s was detected only by TBx in 12% of cases (23/191) and only by SBx in 7.3% (14/191). Gleason score was upgraded by TBx in 16.8% (32/191) and by SBx in 13.6% (26/191) of patients (p = .4).

Conclusions: The combination of TBx and SBx achieved the best results for the detection and prognosis of PCa-s. The use of SBx alone would have missed the detection of PCa-s in 12% of patients.

Citing Articles

MRI software and cognitive fusion biopsies in people with suspected prostate cancer: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Llewellyn A, Phung T, Soares M, Shepherd L, Glynn D, Harden M Health Technol Assess. 2024; 28(61):1-310.

PMID: 39367754 PMC: 11472214. DOI: 10.3310/PLFG4210.


Do we need MRI in all biopsy naïve patients? A multicenter cohort analysis.

Krausewitz P, Borkowetz A, Ortner G, Kornienko K, Wenzel M, Westhoff N World J Urol. 2024; 42(1):73.

PMID: 38324090 PMC: 10850200. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-024-04780-1.


A Diagnostic Accuracy Study of Targeted and Systematic Biopsies to Detect Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer, including a Model for the Partial Omission of Systematic Biopsies.

Morote J, Picola N, Munoz-Rodriguez J, Paesano N, Ruiz-Plazas X, Munoz-Rivero M Cancers (Basel). 2023; 15(18).

PMID: 37760511 PMC: 10526349. DOI: 10.3390/cancers15184543.


Does experience change the role of systematic biopsy during MRI-fusion biopsy of the prostate?.

Jahnen M, Amiel T, Wagner T, Kirchhoff F, Buchler J, Duwel C World J Urol. 2023; 41(10):2699-2705.

PMID: 37626183 PMC: 10581940. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-023-04564-z.


Combining targeted and systematic prostate biopsy improves prostate cancer detection and correlation with the whole mount histopathology in biopsy naïve and previous negative biopsy patients.

Mischinger J, Schollnast H, Zurl H, Geyer M, Fischereder K, Adelsmayr G Front Surg. 2022; 9:1013389.

PMID: 36277287 PMC: 9582510. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.1013389.