Li Peizi, Ni Pu, Kombak Faruk Erdem, Wolters Emily, Haines George Kenneth, Si Qiusheng
Department of Pathology, Molecular and Cell-Based Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai New York, NY, USA.
Department of Pathology, Mount Sinai West Hospital New York, NY, USA.
Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2024 May 15;17(5):173-181. doi: 10.62347/JHYY2053. eCollection 2024.
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasound targeted biopsy has frequently been used together with a 12-core systematic biopsy for prostate cancer screening in the past few years. However, the efficacy of targeted biopsy compared to systematic biopsy, as well as its clinical-histologic correlation, has been assessed by a limited number of studies and is further investigated in this study.
We collected 960 cases with both targeted and systematic prostate biopsies from 04/2019 to 04/2022 (Table 1). We compared cancer detection rates between targeted and systematic prostate biopsies in different grade groups. Correlations with the size of prostate lesions, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, and Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scale were also analyzed for each of these biopsy methods.
Among the 960 men who underwent targeted biopsy with systematic biopsy, prostatic adenocarcinoma was diagnosed in 652 (67.9%) cases. 489 (50.9%) cases were diagnosed by targeted biopsy and 576 (60.0%) cases were diagnosed by systematic biopsy. In the 384 cases diagnosed negative by systematic biopsy, targeted biopsy identified cancer in 76 (8%) cases. Systematic biopsy was able to detect 163 cancer cases that were missed by targeted biopsy. Systematic biopsy detected more grade group 1 cancers compared to targeted biopsy. However, for higher grade cancers, the differences between the cancer detection rates of targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy became negligible. Targeted biopsy upgraded the grade group categorized by systematic biopsy in several cases (3.8%, 7.0%, 2.6%, 1.1% and 0.9% in Grade Groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 respectively). Targeted biopsy was more likely to detect cancer in larger lesions (13.17 mm VS 11.41 mm, P=0.0056) and for higher PI-RADS scales (4.19 VS 3.68, P<0.0001). The cancers detected by targeted biopsy also had higher PSA levels (10.38 ng/ml VS 6.39 ng/ml, P=0.0026).
Targeted biopsy with systematic biopsy improved cancer detection rate compared to systematic biopsy alone. Targeted biopsy is not more sensitive for grade groups 1, 4, or 5 cancers but is as sensitive as systematic biopsy for detecting grade group 2 and 3 cancers. Targeted biopsy is more effective at detecting cancers when patients have larger lesions, higher PI-RADS scales, and higher PSA levels.
在过去几年中,磁共振成像(MRI)/超声引导下靶向活检经常与12针系统活检一起用于前列腺癌筛查。然而,与系统活检相比,靶向活检的疗效及其临床组织学相关性仅在少数研究中得到评估,本研究对此进行了进一步调查。
我们收集了2019年4月至2022年4月期间960例同时进行靶向和系统前列腺活检的病例(表1)。我们比较了不同分级组中靶向和系统前列腺活检的癌症检出率。还分析了这两种活检方法中前列腺病变大小、前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)水平和前列腺影像报告和数据系统(PI-RADS)分级之间的相关性。
在960例同时接受靶向活检和系统活检的男性中,652例(67.9%)被诊断为前列腺腺癌。489例(50.9%)通过靶向活检确诊,576例(60.0%)通过系统活检确诊。在系统活检诊断为阴性的384例病例中,靶向活检在76例(8%)病例中发现了癌症。系统活检能够检测出靶向活检遗漏的163例癌症病例。与靶向活检相比,系统活检检测出更多的1级癌症。然而,对于高级别癌症,靶向活检和系统活检的癌症检出率差异变得微不足道。在一些病例中,靶向活检提高了系统活检分类的分级组(1、2、3、4和5级组分别为3.8%、7.0%、2.6%、1.1%和0.9%)。靶向活检更有可能在较大病变中检测到癌症(13.17mm对11.41mm,P = 0.0056)以及PI-RADS分级较高的病变中(4.19对3.68,P < 0.0001)。靶向活检检测出的癌症也具有更高的PSA水平(10.38ng/ml对6.39ng/ml,P = 0.0026)。
与单独的系统活检相比,靶向活检联合系统活检提高了癌症检出率。靶向活检对1、4或5级组癌症的敏感性并不更高,但在检测2级和3级组癌症方面与系统活检一样敏感。当患者有较大病变、较高的PI-RADS分级和较高的PSA水平时,靶向活检在检测癌症方面更有效。