» Articles » PMID: 36002475

Frozen Section Utilization to Omit Systematic Biopsy in Diagnosing High Risk Prostate Cancer

Overview
Journal Sci Rep
Specialty Science
Date 2022 Aug 24
PMID 36002475
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The current guidelines for targeted prostate biopsy recommend an additional systematic biopsy regardless of clinical risk assessment. To evaluate frozen section biopsy utilization in targeted prostate biopsy to omit systematic biopsies in cases of positive frozen section results of patients with clinical features suggestive of high-risk prostate cancer. In this prospective, single-center study, we enrolled patients with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 5 lesion on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with clinical evidence suggestive of high-risk prostate cancer (either an extracapsular extension or prostate-specific antigen level > 20 ng/ml). All patients underwent 2-4 core targeted biopsies utilizing frozen section biopsy with immediate results, allowing patients with a positive result to omit a systematic biopsy. In case of a negative result, additional systematic biopsies were performed. The primary endpoint was the detection rate of targeted biopsy. Patient demographics, clinical variables were analyzed using SPSS version 20. Sixty-six patients were enrolled in this study. Among them, 63 patients were diagnosed with cancer without the need for an additional systematic biopsy. Three patients were non-diagnostic with target biopsy alone. Hence an additional systematic biopsy was performed. Two of these patients were diagnosed with prostate cancer and one tested negative for cancer. In this report we looked into the necessity of taking a routine systematic biopsy in patients with high risk features of prostate cancer. We found that utilizing frozen section biopsy for targeted biopsy reduces unneccessary systematic biopsy in 97% of cases and still provides a means for systematic biopsy when targeted biopsy alone fails to make the diagnosis.

References
1.
Ahmed H, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown L, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar M . Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017; 389(10071):815-822. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1. View

2.
Siddiqui M, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George A, Rothwax J, Shakir N . Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA. 2015; 313(4):390-7. PMC: 4572575. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.17942. View

3.
Abd-Alazeez M, Kirkham A, Ahmed H, Arya M, Anastasiadis E, Charman S . Performance of multiparametric MRI in men at risk of prostate cancer before the first biopsy: a paired validating cohort study using template prostate mapping biopsies as the reference standard. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2013; 17(1):40-6. PMC: 3954968. DOI: 10.1038/pcan.2013.43. View

4.
Sonn G, Chang E, Natarajan S, Margolis D, Macairan M, Lieu P . Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Eur Urol. 2013; 65(4):809-15. PMC: 3858524. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.025. View

5.
Hu J, Chang E, Natarajan S, Margolis D, Macairan M, Lieu P . Targeted prostate biopsy in select men for active surveillance: do the Epstein criteria still apply?. J Urol. 2014; 192(2):385-90. PMC: 4129939. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.005. View