INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the results of ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies (US-PB) and magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsies (MRI-PB) in two contemporary cohorts and to describe the parameters orienting the choice of technique. METHODS: Two contemporary cohorts of patients undergoing US-PB or MR-PB using the Urostation® (Koelis, Grenoble, France) between November 2010 and July 2015 were analyzed retrospectively. Patients with metastatic cancer or recurrence after treatment, saturation biopsies, and US-PB performed after a negative MRI were excluded. Comparison of populations, biopsy results, and clinical and biological parameters guiding the choice of technique were studied on multivariate analysis (logistic regression) taking into account the following confounding factors: age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) rate, prostatic volume, number of previous biopsies, and abnormal digital rectal examination. RESULTS: One hundred fourteen patients were included in the US-PB group and 118 in the MR-PB group. Prostate cancer was diagnosed among 65 patients in the US-PB group (detection rate 57.0%) and 70 patients in the MR-PB group (detection rate 59.3%) (odds ratio [OR] 3.00; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.52-6.17; p=0.002). Among the cancers diagnosed in the MR-PB group, 21 were diagnosed by the two targeted biopsy cores only (15.5%). Patients undergoing MR-PB were significantly younger (p=0.0005), with a higher number of previous biopsy sessions (p<10-7) and larger prostate volume (p=0.001). PSA rate alone (p=0.23) and digital rectal examination (p=0.48) did not significantly interfere with the choice of a technique. CONCLUSIONS: Younger patients with larger prostates and prior negative biopsy were more likely to be offered the MR-PB technique. On multivariate analysis, the detection rate was higher in the MR-PB group.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the results of ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies (US-PB) and magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsies (MRI-PB) in two contemporary cohorts and to describe the parameters orienting the choice of technique. METHODS: Two contemporary cohorts of patients undergoing US-PB or MR-PB using the Urostation® (Koelis, Grenoble, France) between November 2010 and July 2015 were analyzed retrospectively. Patients with metastatic cancer or recurrence after treatment, saturation biopsies, and US-PB performed after a negative MRI were excluded. Comparison of populations, biopsy results, and clinical and biological parameters guiding the choice of technique were studied on multivariate analysis (logistic regression) taking into account the following confounding factors: age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) rate, prostatic volume, number of previous biopsies, and abnormal digital rectal examination. RESULTS: One hundred fourteen patients were included in the US-PB group and 118 in the MR-PB group. Prostate cancer was diagnosed among 65 patients in the US-PB group (detection rate 57.0%) and 70 patients in the MR-PB group (detection rate 59.3%) (odds ratio [OR] 3.00; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.52-6.17; p=0.002). Among the cancers diagnosed in the MR-PB group, 21 were diagnosed by the two targeted biopsy cores only (15.5%). Patients undergoing MR-PB were significantly younger (p=0.0005), with a higher number of previous biopsy sessions (p<10-7) and larger prostate volume (p=0.001). PSA rate alone (p=0.23) and digital rectal examination (p=0.48) did not significantly interfere with the choice of a technique. CONCLUSIONS: Younger patients with larger prostates and prior negative biopsy were more likely to be offered the MR-PB technique. On multivariate analysis, the detection rate was higher in the MR-PB group.
Authors: Gerhardt Attard; Chris Parker; Ros A Eeles; Fritz Schröder; Scott A Tomlins; Ian Tannock; Charles G Drake; Johann S de Bono Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Xiaosong Meng; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Neil Mendhiratta; Michael Fenstermaker; Richard Huang; James S Wysock; Marc A Bjurlin; Susan Marshall; Fang-Ming Deng; Ming Zhou; Jonathan Melamed; William C Huang; Herbert Lepor; Samir S Taneja Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-06-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Peter A Pinto; Paul H Chung; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Angelo A Baccala; Jochen Kruecker; Compton J Benjamin; Sheng Xu; Pingkun Yan; Samuel Kadoury; Celene Chua; Julia K Locklin; Baris Turkbey; Joanna H Shih; Stacey P Gates; Carey Buckner; Gennady Bratslavsky; W Marston Linehan; Neil D Glossop; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Pierre Mozer; Morgan Rouprêt; Chloé Le Cossec; Benjamin Granger; Eva Comperat; Arachk de Gorski; Olivier Cussenot; Raphaële Renard-Penna Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-07-27 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Caroline M A Hoeks; Diederik M Somford; Inge M van Oort; Henk Vergunst; Jorg R Oddens; Geert A Smits; Monique J Roobol; Meelan Bul; Thomas Hambrock; J Alfred Witjes; Jurgen J Fütterer; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Maarten de Rooij; Simone Crienen; J Alfred Witjes; Jelle O Barentsz; Maroeska M Rovers; Janneke P C Grutters Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-12-21 Impact factor: 20.096