PURPOSE: To investigate prostate cancer (PC) detection rate, employing endorectal multiparametric 3-tesla magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) driving subsequent cognitive systematic prostatic biopsy (CSPB) versus a homogenous group of patients who did not undergo endorectal MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A series of patients with a first negative biopsy were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomized into two groups: Group A: patients underwent MRI and subsequent CSPB; Group B: patients that did not undergo MRI. Each patient underwent a 13-core sampling. Patients from Group A had four cores more for each MRI suspected lesion. The cancer detection rate was calculated for each group with regard to possible matches or mismatches between MRI evidence and pathological reports. RESULTS:Two hundred consecutive patients were investigated. Fifty out of 200 (25 %) patients had a diagnosis of PC, 24 in Group A and 26 in Group B. In Group A, 67 patients (67 %) were positive for suspected lesions at the MRI. The mismatch between MRI findings and the CSPB outcome was 61 % with an MRI-driven detection rate of 15 %. Group B detection rate was 26 % with no significant differences versus Group A (P = NS). Patient discomfort was higher in Group A (82 %). The accuracy of CSPB was 41 % with a positive predictive value of 22.3 %. This rate is lower in high-grade cancers (11.9 %). The cost-effectiveness was higher in Group A. CONCLUSIONS:Prostate cancer detection rate does not improve by CSPB. The accuracy of CSPB was lower in high-grade PC, and a higher cost was found with CSPB.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To investigate prostate cancer (PC) detection rate, employing endorectal multiparametric 3-tesla magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) driving subsequent cognitive systematic prostatic biopsy (CSPB) versus a homogenous group of patients who did not undergo endorectal MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A series of patients with a first negative biopsy were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomized into two groups: Group A: patients underwent MRI and subsequent CSPB; Group B: patients that did not undergo MRI. Each patient underwent a 13-core sampling. Patients from Group A had four cores more for each MRI suspected lesion. The cancer detection rate was calculated for each group with regard to possible matches or mismatches between MRI evidence and pathological reports. RESULTS: Two hundred consecutive patients were investigated. Fifty out of 200 (25 %) patients had a diagnosis of PC, 24 in Group A and 26 in Group B. In Group A, 67 patients (67 %) were positive for suspected lesions at the MRI. The mismatch between MRI findings and the CSPB outcome was 61 % with an MRI-driven detection rate of 15 %. Group B detection rate was 26 % with no significant differences versus Group A (P = NS). Patient discomfort was higher in Group A (82 %). The accuracy of CSPB was 41 % with a positive predictive value of 22.3 %. This rate is lower in high-grade cancers (11.9 %). The cost-effectiveness was higher in Group A. CONCLUSIONS:Prostate cancer detection rate does not improve by CSPB. The accuracy of CSPB was lower in high-grade PC, and a higher cost was found with CSPB.
Entities:
Keywords:
Detection rate; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostate biopsy; Prostate cancer
Authors: V Serretta; A Catanese; G Daricello; R Liotta; R Allegro; A Martorana; F Aragona; D Melloni Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2007-07-17 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Berrend G Muller; Joanna H Shih; Sandeep Sankineni; Jamie Marko; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Arvin Koruthu George; Jean J M C H de la Rosette; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-06-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Daniel Junker; Michael Quentin; Udo Nagele; Michael Edlinger; Jonathan Richenberg; Georg Schaefer; Michael Ladurner; Werner Jaschke; Wolfgang Horninger; Friedrich Aigner Journal: World J Urol Date: 2014-08-01 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Maudy Gayet; Anouk van der Aa; Harrie P Beerlage; Bart Ph Schrier; Peter F A Mulders; Hessel Wijkstra Journal: BJU Int Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 5.588