The combination of prebiopsy MRI and transperineal targeted biopsies is being increasingly used to obtain tissues from patients with suspected prostate cancer (PCa).
Objective:
To investigate the difference in PCa detection rate between transperineal cognitive fusion TB (COG-TB) and transperineal software fusion TB (FUS-TB).
Participants:
The present study included 163 male patients with suspected PCa who had not undergone prostate biopsy, had a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of ≤20 ng/mL, and had been examined by bi-parameter MRI and confirmed to have prostate nodules by prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 (PI-RADS V2) scores ≥3 (from December 3, 2018 to October 7, 2019).
Intervention:
Seventy-one patients underwent transperineal COG-TB, and 92 patients underwent transperineal FUS-TB. The detection rate of the first four needles was compared.
Results:
No significant difference was found in the overall detection rate of PCa between COG-TB and FUS-TB (60.56% vs 51.08%, p = 0.228). This result was consistent even after stratifying by PI-RADS score. There was also no significant difference between COG-TB and FUS-TB in the detection rate of clinically significant PCa (p = 0.641). Moreover, COG-TB and FUS-TB showed no difference in the detection rate of PCa with different Gleason scores.
Conclusions:
In patients with suspected PCa with PSA ≤20 ng/mL and PI-RADS ≥3, FUS-TB was comparable to COG-TB in the detection rate of PCa.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrayF, FerlayJ, SoerjomataramI, SiegelRL, TorreLA, JemalA. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin, 2018; 68:394–424.
2.
GayetM, van der AaA, BeerlageHP, SchrierBP, MuldersPF, WijkstraH. The value of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography (MRI/US)-fusion biopsy platforms in prostate cancer detection: A systematic review. BJU Int, 2016; 117:392–400.
MukendiAM, Van Den BergE, PatherS, PadayacheeRS. Metachronous or synchronous male breast and prostate cancers a duality to lookout for. F1000Res, 2018; 7:1825.
5.
HeBM, ChenR, ShiZK, et al.Trans-perineal template-guided mapping biopsy vs. freehand trans-perineal biopsy in Chinese patients with PSA <20 ng/ml: similar cancer detection rate but different lesion detection rate. Front Oncol, 2019; 9:758.
6.
BorghesiM, AhmedH, NamR, et al.Complications after systematic, random, and image-guided prostate biopsy. Eur Urol, 2017; 71:353–365.
7.
MoroteJ, CelmaA, PlanasJ. Re: Lars Boesen, Nis Norgaard, Vibeke Logager, et al. Prebiopsy biparametric magnetic resonance imaging combined with prostate-specific antigen density in detecting and ruling out Gleason 7–10 prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men. Eur Urol Oncol, 2019; 2:311–319.
8.
MussiTC, YamauchiFI, TridenteCF, et al.Interobserver agreement of PI-RADS v. 2 lexicon among radiologists with different levels of experience. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2020; 51:593–602.
9.
KhooCC, Eldred-EvansD, PetersM, et al.Likert vs. PI-RADS v2: A comparison of two radiological scoring systems for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. BJU Int, 2020; 125:49–55.
10.
LuczynskaE, Heinze-PaluchowskaS, DomalikA, et al.The utility of diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) using apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in discriminating between prostate cancer and normal tissue. Pol J Radiol, 2014; 79:450–455.
11.
WangHF, ChenR, HeBM, et al.Initial experience with a novel method for cognitive transperineal magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsy. Asian J Androl, 2020; 22:432–436.
12.
EzquerA, Ortega HrescakMC, SanaguaC, et al.Transrectal doppler ultrasound during prostate biopsy: Clinical utility and limitations. Actas Urol Esp, 2015; 39:13–19.
13.
DingZ, YeX, ZhangL, et al.Evaluation of the performance of the ultrasound (US) elastographic Q-analysis score combined with the prostate imaging reporting and data system for malignancy risk stratification in prostate nodules based on transrectal US-magnetic resonance imaging fusion imaging. J Ultrasound Med, 2019; 38:2991–2998.
14.
KaufmannS, KruckS, KramerU, et al.Direct comparison of targeted MRI-guided biopsy with systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in patients with previous negative prostate biopsies. Urol Int, 2015; 94:319–325.
15.
SchootsIG, RoobolMJ, NieboerD, BangmaCH, SteyerbergEW, HuninkMG. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol, 2015; 68:438–450.
16.
WegelinO, van MelickHHE, HooftL, et al.Comparing three different techniques for magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsies: A systematic review of in-bore versus magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion versus cognitive registration. Is there a preferred technique?. Eur Urol, 2017; 71:517–531.
17.
DelongchampsNB, PeyromaureM, SchullA, et al.Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer detection: Comparison of random and targeted biopsies. J Urol, 2013; 189:493–499.
18.
TurkbeyB, RosenkrantzAB, HaiderMA, et al.Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol, 2019; 76:340–351.
19.
RouviereO, PuechP, Renard-PennaR, et al.Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): A prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol, 2019; 20:100–109.
20.
KasivisvanathanV, RannikkoAS, BorghiM, et al.MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med, 2018; 378:1767–1777.
21.
OderdaM, FalettiR, BattistiG, et al.Prostate cancer detection rate with Koelis fusion biopsies versus cognitive biopsies: A comparative study. Urol Int, 2016; 97:230–237.
22.
YamadaY, ShiraishiT, UenoA, et al.Magnetic resonance imaging-guided targeted prostate biopsy: Comparison between computer-software-based fusion versus cognitive fusion technique in biopsy-naive patients. Int J Urol, 2020; 27:67–71.
23.
MondaSM, VetterJM, AndrioleGL, et al.Cognitive versus software fusion for MRI-targeted biopsy: Experience before and after implementation of fusion. Urology, 2018; 119:115–120.
24.
BacoE, RudE, EriLM, et al.A randomized controlled trial to assess and compare the outcomes of two-core prostate biopsy guided by fused magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound images and traditional 12-core systematic biopsy. Eur Urol, 2016; 69:149–156.
25.
PuechP, RouviereO, Renard-PennaR, et al.Prostate cancer diagnosis: Multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy—Prospective multicenter study. Radiology, 2013; 268:461–469.
