Yunyun Liu1, Lin Dong1, Lihua Xiang1, Boyang Zhou1, Hanxiang Wang1, Ying Zhang1, Guang Xu1, Jian Wu1, Shuai Wang1, Yifeng Zhang1, Huixiong Xu1. 1. Department of Medical Ultrasound, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital; Ultrasound Research and Education Institute, Clinical Research Center for Interventional Medicine, Tongji University School of Medicine; Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Ultrasound Diagnosis and Treatment, Shanghai, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore whether prostate-specific antigen (PSA) affects the choice of prostate puncture methods by comparing MRI-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy (MRI-TBx) with transrectal ultrasound systematic biopsy (TRUS-SBx) in the detection of prostate cancer (PCa), clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and non-clinically significant prostate cancer (nsPCa) in different PSA groups (<10.0,10.0-20.0 and>20.0 ng ml-1). METHODS: A total of 190 patients with 215 lesions who underwent both MRI-TBx and TRUS-SBx were included in this retrospective study. PSA was measured pre-operatively and stratified to three levels. The detection rates of PCa, csPCa and nsPCa through different methods (MRI-TBx, TRUS-SBx, or MRI-TBx +TRUS SBx) were compared with stratification by PSA. RESULTS: Among the 190 patients, the histopathological results revealed PCa in 126 cases, including 119 csPCa. In PSA <10.0 ng ml-1 group, although the detection rates of PCa and csPCa by MRI-TBx were higher than those of TRUS-SBx, no significant differences were observed (p = 0.741; p = 0.400). In PSA 10.0-20.0 ng ml-1 group, difference between the detection rate of csPCa with TRUS-SBx and the combined method was statistically significant (p = 0.044). As for PSA >20.0 ng ml-1, MRI-TBx had a higher csPCa rate than TRUS-SBx with no statistical significance noted (p = 0.600). CONCLUSION: MRI-TBx combined with TRUS-SBx could be suitable as a standard detection approach for csPCa in patients with PSA 10.0-20.0 ng ml-1. As for PSA >20.0 and <10.0 ng ml-1, both MRI-TBx and TRUS-SBx might provide effective solutions for tumor detection. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study gives an account of choosing appropriate prostate puncture methods through PSA level.
OBJECTIVES: To explore whether prostate-specific antigen (PSA) affects the choice of prostate puncture methods by comparing MRI-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy (MRI-TBx) with transrectal ultrasound systematic biopsy (TRUS-SBx) in the detection of prostate cancer (PCa), clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and non-clinically significant prostate cancer (nsPCa) in different PSA groups (<10.0,10.0-20.0 and>20.0 ng ml-1). METHODS: A total of 190 patients with 215 lesions who underwent both MRI-TBx and TRUS-SBx were included in this retrospective study. PSA was measured pre-operatively and stratified to three levels. The detection rates of PCa, csPCa and nsPCa through different methods (MRI-TBx, TRUS-SBx, or MRI-TBx +TRUS SBx) were compared with stratification by PSA. RESULTS: Among the 190 patients, the histopathological results revealed PCa in 126 cases, including 119 csPCa. In PSA <10.0 ng ml-1 group, although the detection rates of PCa and csPCa by MRI-TBx were higher than those of TRUS-SBx, no significant differences were observed (p = 0.741; p = 0.400). In PSA 10.0-20.0 ng ml-1 group, difference between the detection rate of csPCa with TRUS-SBx and the combined method was statistically significant (p = 0.044). As for PSA >20.0 ng ml-1, MRI-TBx had a higher csPCa rate than TRUS-SBx with no statistical significance noted (p = 0.600). CONCLUSION: MRI-TBx combined with TRUS-SBx could be suitable as a standard detection approach for csPCa in patients with PSA 10.0-20.0 ng ml-1. As for PSA >20.0 and <10.0 ng ml-1, both MRI-TBx and TRUS-SBx might provide effective solutions for tumor detection. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study gives an account of choosing appropriate prostate puncture methods through PSA level.
Authors: Peter R Carroll; J Kellogg Parsons; Gerald Andriole; Robert R Bahnson; Erik P Castle; William J Catalona; Douglas M Dahl; John W Davis; Jonathan I Epstein; Ruth B Etzioni; Thomas Farrington; George P Hemstreet; Mark H Kawachi; Simon Kim; Paul H Lange; Kevin R Loughlin; William Lowrance; Paul Maroni; James Mohler; Todd M Morgan; Kelvin A Moses; Robert B Nadler; Michael Poch; Chuck Scales; Terrence M Shaneyfelt; Marc C Smaldone; Geoffrey Sonn; Preston Sprenkle; Andrew J Vickers; Robert Wake; Dorothy A Shead; Deborah A Freedman-Cass Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Jonathan I Epstein; Lars Egevad; Mahul B Amin; Brett Delahunt; John R Srigley; Peter A Humphrey Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Christophe K Mannaerts; Amir Kajtazovic; Olivia A P Lodeizen; Maudy Gayet; Marc R W Engelbrecht; Gerrit J Jager; Hessel Wijkstra; Theo M de Reijke; Harrie P Beerlage Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2019-01-17 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: A Celma; R López; S Roche; J Planas; L Regis; J Placer; A Borque; L M Esteban; I de Torres; J Morote Journal: Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed) Date: 2019-10-31
Authors: M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Hong Truong; Lambros Stamatakis; Srinivas Vourganti; Jeffrey Nix; Anthony N Hoang; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Brian Shuch; Michael Weintraub; Jochen Kruecker; Hayet Amalou; Baris Turkbey; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-06-12 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Antti S Rannikko; Marcelo Borghi; Valeria Panebianco; Lance A Mynderse; Markku H Vaarala; Alberto Briganti; Lars Budäus; Giles Hellawell; Richard G Hindley; Monique J Roobol; Scott Eggener; Maneesh Ghei; Arnauld Villers; Franck Bladou; Geert M Villeirs; Jaspal Virdi; Silvan Boxler; Grégoire Robert; Paras B Singh; Wulphert Venderink; Boris A Hadaschik; Alain Ruffion; Jim C Hu; Daniel Margolis; Sébastien Crouzet; Laurence Klotz; Samir S Taneja; Peter Pinto; Inderbir Gill; Clare Allen; Francesco Giganti; Alex Freeman; Stephen Morris; Shonit Punwani; Norman R Williams; Chris Brew-Graves; Jonathan Deeks; Yemisi Takwoingi; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-03-18 Impact factor: 176.079