Ryoken Yamanaka1, Yohei Sekino2, Takashi Babasaki1, Kohei Kobatake1, Hiroyuki Kitano1, Kenichiro Ikeda1, Keisuke Goto1, Tetsutaro Hayashi1, Jun Teishima1, Yukio Takeshima3, Yukiko Honda4, Kazuo Awai4, Nobuyuki Hinata1. 1. Department of Urology, Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan. 2. Department of Urology, Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan; akikosekino@gmail.com. 3. Department of Pathology, Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan. 4. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)/ultrasonography fusion prostate biopsy (FB) is a more accurate method of diagnosis than conventional prostate biopsy, but false-positive lesions still exist. Limited studies have examined the cause of false-positive lesions by histological analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined 322 patients who underwent mpMRI/transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) FB. We classified prostate imaging-recording and data system (PI-RADS) 3 and PI-RADS 4-5 as low PI-RADS lesions and high PI-RADS lesions, respectively. In total, 105 lesions were identified as false-positive lesions. We performed histological analysis of atrophy, hyperplasia, and lymphocyte infiltration in these lesions, comparing low PI-RADS lesions and high PI-RADS lesions. RESULTS: The frequencies of prostate hyperplasia and lymphocyte infiltration were higher in high PI-RADS lesions than in low PI-RADS lesions (p=0.028 and 0.024, respectively). There was no significant difference regarding atrophy (p=0.295). CONCLUSION: Histopathological change may be one of the reasons for false-positive lesions.
BACKGROUND/AIM: Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)/ultrasonography fusion prostate biopsy (FB) is a more accurate method of diagnosis than conventional prostate biopsy, but false-positive lesions still exist. Limited studies have examined the cause of false-positive lesions by histological analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined 322 patients who underwent mpMRI/transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) FB. We classified prostate imaging-recording and data system (PI-RADS) 3 and PI-RADS 4-5 as low PI-RADS lesions and high PI-RADS lesions, respectively. In total, 105 lesions were identified as false-positive lesions. We performed histological analysis of atrophy, hyperplasia, and lymphocyte infiltration in these lesions, comparing low PI-RADS lesions and high PI-RADS lesions. RESULTS: The frequencies of prostate hyperplasia and lymphocyte infiltration were higher in high PI-RADS lesions than in low PI-RADS lesions (p=0.028 and 0.024, respectively). There was no significant difference regarding atrophy (p=0.295). CONCLUSION: Histopathological change may be one of the reasons for false-positive lesions.
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: Marie Christine Hupe; Anne Offermann; Lars Tharun; Alexander Fürschke; Alex Frydrychowicz; Nathalie Garstka; Shahrokh F Shariat; Jörg Barkhausen; Axel S Merseburger; Mario W Kramer; Sven Perner Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2020-02-27 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Matthew Truong; Gary Hollenberg; Eric Weinberg; Edward M Messing; Hiroshi Miyamoto; Thomas P Frye Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-02-03 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Alison D Sheridan; Sameer K Nath; Sanjay Aneja; Jamil S Syed; Jay Pahade; Mahan Mathur; Preston Sprenkle; Jeffrey C Weinreb; Michael Spektor Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2018-02-28 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Baris Turkbey; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Masoom A Haider; Anwar R Padhani; Geert Villeirs; Katarzyna J Macura; Clare M Tempany; Peter L Choyke; Francois Cornud; Daniel J Margolis; Harriet C Thoeny; Sadhna Verma; Jelle Barentsz; Jeffrey C Weinreb Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jennifer B Gordetsky; David Ullman; Luciana Schultz; Kristin K Porter; Maria Del Carmen Rodriguez Pena; Carli E Calderone; Jeffrey W Nix; Michael Ullman; Sejong Bae; Soroush Rais-Bahrami Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Hashim U Ahmed; Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily; Louise C Brown; Rhian Gabe; Richard Kaplan; Mahesh K Parmar; Yolanda Collaco-Moraes; Katie Ward; Richard G Hindley; Alex Freeman; Alex P Kirkham; Robert Oldroyd; Chris Parker; Mark Emberton Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 79.321