Pietro Pepe1, Antonio Garufi2, Giandomenico Priolo2, Michele Pennisi3. 1. Urology Unit, Cannizzaro Hospital, Catania, Italy. Electronic address: piepepe@hotmail.com. 2. Imaging Department, Cannizzaro Hospital, Catania, Italy. 3. Urology Unit, Cannizzaro Hospital, Catania, Italy.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the detection rate for clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) of transperineal (TP) versus transrectal (TR) multiparametric (mp) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) fusion targeted biopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 2015 to January 2016, a total of 200 men (median age, 61 years) with negative digital rectal examination findings underwent repeat saturation TP prostate biopsy (SPBx; median 30 cores) for increasing or persistent elevated prostate-specific antigen values. Ten day before SPBx, all patients underwent 3.0 T pelvic mpMRI (Achieva 3T; Philips Healthcare Best, Netherlands). In the presence of mpMRI lesions suggestive of cancer (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] score 4/5), targeted mpMRI/TRUS TR fusion guided biopsies (4 cores) and TP cognitive biopsies (4 cores) were added to SPBx. RESULTS: Median prostate-specific antigen was 8.6 ng/mL, and mpMRI revealed a suspicious lesion in 95 (47.5%) of 200 cases. Overall, in 60 (30%) of 200 men, a clinically significant PCa was found, and in all cases, mpMRI was positive. SPBx, TR fusion, and mpMRI/TRUS TP cognitive targeted biopsy diagnosed 59 (98.3%), 40 (78.3%), and 56 (93.3%) clinically significant PCa, respectively. TR fusion versus TP targeted biopsy missed 12 versus 1 (P = .001) cancers of the anterior zone and 8 versus 3 (P = .12) cancers of the peripheric gland, respectively; moreover, PCa diagnosed by TR fusion versus TP targeted biopsy had a mpMRI lesion diameter and percentage of positive cores equal to 13 versus 10 mm and 33% versus 58% (P = .001), respectively. CONCLUSION: mpMRI/TRUS TP cognitive targeted biopsy found a greater percentage of clinically significant PCa of the anterior zone compared to the mpMRI/TRUS TR fusion approach (93.3% vs. 25%; P = .0001).
INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the detection rate for clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) of transperineal (TP) versus transrectal (TR) multiparametric (mp) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) fusion targeted biopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 2015 to January 2016, a total of 200 men (median age, 61 years) with negative digital rectal examination findings underwent repeat saturation TP prostate biopsy (SPBx; median 30 cores) for increasing or persistent elevated prostate-specific antigen values. Ten day before SPBx, all patients underwent 3.0 T pelvic mpMRI (Achieva 3T; Philips Healthcare Best, Netherlands). In the presence of mpMRI lesions suggestive of cancer (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] score 4/5), targeted mpMRI/TRUS TR fusion guided biopsies (4 cores) and TP cognitive biopsies (4 cores) were added to SPBx. RESULTS: Median prostate-specific antigen was 8.6 ng/mL, and mpMRI revealed a suspicious lesion in 95 (47.5%) of 200 cases. Overall, in 60 (30%) of 200 men, a clinically significant PCa was found, and in all cases, mpMRI was positive. SPBx, TR fusion, and mpMRI/TRUS TP cognitive targeted biopsy diagnosed 59 (98.3%), 40 (78.3%), and 56 (93.3%) clinically significant PCa, respectively. TR fusion versus TP targeted biopsy missed 12 versus 1 (P = .001) cancers of the anterior zone and 8 versus 3 (P = .12) cancers of the peripheric gland, respectively; moreover, PCa diagnosed by TR fusion versus TP targeted biopsy had a mpMRI lesion diameter and percentage of positive cores equal to 13 versus 10 mm and 33% versus 58% (P = .001), respectively. CONCLUSION: mpMRI/TRUS TP cognitive targeted biopsy found a greater percentage of clinically significant PCa of the anterior zone compared to the mpMRI/TRUS TR fusion approach (93.3% vs. 25%; P = .0001).
Authors: Armando Stabile; Francesco Giganti; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Samir S Taneja; Geert Villeirs; Inderbir S Gill; Clare Allen; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore; Veeru Kasivisvanathan Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Frank-Jan H Drost; Daniël F Osses; Daan Nieboer; Ewout W Steyerberg; Chris H Bangma; Monique J Roobol; Ivo G Schoots Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-04-25
Authors: S Kaufmann; J Mischinger; B Amend; S Rausch; M Adam; M Scharpf; F Fend; U Kramer; M Notohamiprodjo; K Nikolaou; A Stenzl; J Bedke; S Kruck Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-11-15 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Sneha Parekh; Parita Ratnani; Ugo Falagario; Dara Lundon; Deepshikha Kewlani; Jordan Nasri; Zach Dovey; Dimitrios Stroumbakis; Daniel Ranti; Ralph Grauer; Stanislaw Sobotka; Adriana Pedraza; Vinayak Wagaskar; Lajja Mistry; Ivan Jambor; Anna Lantz; Otto Ettala; Armando Stabile; Pekka Taimen; Hannu J Aronen; Juha Knaapila; Ileana Montoya Perez; Giorgio Gandaglia; Alberto Martini; Wolfgang Picker; Erik Haug; Luigi Cormio; Tobias Nordström; Alberto Briganti; Peter J Boström; Giuseppe Carrieri; Kenneth Haines; Michael A Gorin; Peter Wiklund; Mani Menon; Ash Tewari Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2022-05-20
Authors: Pietro Pepe; Davide D'Urso; Antonio Garufi; Giandomenico Priolo; Michele Pennisi; Giorgio Russo; Maria Gabriella Sabini; Lucia Maria Valastro; Antonio Galia; Filippo Fraggetta Journal: In Vivo Date: 2017 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Emanuel Darius Cata; Iulia Andras; Teodora Telecan; Attila Tamas-Szora; Radu-Tudor Coman; Dan-Vasile Stanca; Ioan Coman; Nicolae Crisan Journal: Med Pharm Rep Date: 2021-04-29