Yaxley Anna J, Yaxley John W, Thangasamy Isaac A, Ballard Emma, Pokorny Morgan R
Prince Charles Hospital, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
Wesley Hospital, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
BJU Int. 2017 Nov;120 Suppl 3:43-50. doi: 10.1111/bju.13971. Epub 2017 Sep 7.
To compare the detection rates of prostate cancer (PCa) in men with Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3-5 abnormalities on 3-Tesla multiparametric (mp) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using in-bore MRI-guided biopsy compared with cognitively directed transperineal (cTP) biopsy and transrectal ultrasonography (cTRUS) biopsy.
This was a retrospective single-centre study of consecutive men attending the private practice clinic of an experienced urologist performing MRI-guided biopsy and an experienced urologist performing cTP and cTRUS biopsy techniques for PI-RADS 3-5 lesions identified on 3-Tesla mpMRI.
There were 595 target mpMRI lesions from 482 men with PI-RADS 3-5 regions of interest during 483 episodes of biopsy. The abnormal mpMRI target lesion was biopsied using the MRI-guided method for 298 biopsies, the cTP method for 248 biopsies and the cTRUS method for 49 biopsies. There were no significant differences in PCa detection among the three biopsy methods in PI-RADS 3 (48.9%, 40.0% and 44.4%, respectively), PI-RADS 4 (73.2%, 81.0% and 85.0%, respectively) or PI-RADS 5 (95.2, 92.0% and 95.0%, respectively) lesions, and there was no significant difference in detection of significant PCa among the biopsy methods in PI-RADS 3 (42.2%, 30.0% and 33.3%, respectively), PI-RADS 4 (66.8%, 66.0% and 80.0%, respectively) or PI-RADS 5 (90.5%, 89.8% and 90.0%, respectively) lesions. There were also no differences in PCa or significant PCa detection based on lesion location or size among the methods.
We found no significant difference in the ability to detect PCa or significant PCa using targeted MRI-guided, cTP or cTRUS biopsy methods. Identification of an abnormal area on mpMRI appears to be more important in increasing the detection of PCa than the technique used to biopsy an MRI abnormality.
比较在3特斯拉多参数磁共振成像(MRI)上前列腺影像报告和数据系统(PI-RADS)3-5级异常的男性中,使用孔内MRI引导活检与认知引导经会阴(cTP)活检及经直肠超声(cTRUS)活检检测前列腺癌(PCa)的比率。
这是一项回顾性单中心研究,纳入了连续就诊于一位经验丰富的进行MRI引导活检的泌尿科医生私人诊所的男性,以及另一位经验丰富的进行cTP和cTRUS活检技术的泌尿科医生,针对在3特斯拉多参数MRI上识别出的PI-RADS 3-5级病变。
在483次活检过程中,482名PI-RADS 3-5级感兴趣区域的男性有595个目标多参数MRI病变。298次活检采用MRI引导方法对异常多参数MRI目标病变进行活检,248次活检采用cTP方法,49次活检采用cTRUS方法。在PI-RADS 3级(分别为48.9%、40.0%和44.4%)、PI-RADS 4级(分别为73.2%、81.0%和85.0%)或PI-RADS 5级(分别为95.2%、92.0%和95.0%)病变中,三种活检方法在PCa检测方面无显著差异;在PI-RADS 3级(分别为42.2%、30.0%和33.3%)、PI-RADS 4级(分别为66.8%、66.0%和80.0%)或PI-RADS 5级(分别为90.5%、89.8%和90.0%)病变中,活检方法在检测有临床意义的PCa方面也无显著差异。基于病变位置或大小,各方法在PCa或有临床意义的PCa检测方面也无差异。
我们发现使用靶向MRI引导、cTP或cTRUS活检方法检测PCa或有临床意义的PCa的能力无显著差异。在提高PCa检测率方面,多参数MRI上异常区域的识别似乎比用于活检MRI异常的技术更为重要。