Cargando…
Detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer in magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography‐fusion transperineal targeted biopsy for lesions with a prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 score of 3–5
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer classified according to the prostate imaging reporting and data system scoring system using magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound rigid fusion targeted biopsy. METHODS: A total of 339 patients underwent transperine...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7379286/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30461076 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/iju.13842 |
_version_ | 1783562606137573376 |
---|---|
author | Hakozaki, Yuji Matsushima, Hisashi Murata, Taro Masuda, Tomoko Hirai, Yoko Oda, Mai Kawauchi, Nobuo Yokoyama, Munehiro Kume, Haruki |
author_facet | Hakozaki, Yuji Matsushima, Hisashi Murata, Taro Masuda, Tomoko Hirai, Yoko Oda, Mai Kawauchi, Nobuo Yokoyama, Munehiro Kume, Haruki |
author_sort | Hakozaki, Yuji |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer classified according to the prostate imaging reporting and data system scoring system using magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound rigid fusion targeted biopsy. METHODS: A total of 339 patients underwent transperineal magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound rigid fusion targeted biopsy in our institution between January 2015 and July 2017. Patients with prostate imaging reporting and data system category 1 or 2 and those with a pre‐biopsy prostate‐specific antigen value of >30 ng/mL were excluded from this study. Finally, 310 patients were recruited. RESULTS: The detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer with prostate imaging reporting and data system category 3, 4, and 5 were 1.0% (1/98), 35.1% (47/134) and 73.1% (57/78), respectively. The factors affecting the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer with prostate imaging reporting and data system categories 4 and 5 were: (i) prostate imaging reporting and data system category 5; (ii) prostate volume <40 cc; (iii) no previous biopsy; (iv) lesion located in the peripheral zone; and (v) prostate‐specific antigen density >0.35 ng/mL/mL. CONCLUSIONS: The detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer on magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound rigid fusion targeted biopsy is very low in patients with prostate imaging reporting and data system category 3; therefore, patients with this classification should not undergo targeted biopsy. Prostate‐specific antigen density, prostate volume, locations of suspected cancer and history of biopsy should be considered to predict the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer with prostate imaging reporting and data system categories 4 and 5. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7379286 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73792862020-07-24 Detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer in magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography‐fusion transperineal targeted biopsy for lesions with a prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 score of 3–5 Hakozaki, Yuji Matsushima, Hisashi Murata, Taro Masuda, Tomoko Hirai, Yoko Oda, Mai Kawauchi, Nobuo Yokoyama, Munehiro Kume, Haruki Int J Urol Original Articles: Clinical Investigation OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer classified according to the prostate imaging reporting and data system scoring system using magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound rigid fusion targeted biopsy. METHODS: A total of 339 patients underwent transperineal magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound rigid fusion targeted biopsy in our institution between January 2015 and July 2017. Patients with prostate imaging reporting and data system category 1 or 2 and those with a pre‐biopsy prostate‐specific antigen value of >30 ng/mL were excluded from this study. Finally, 310 patients were recruited. RESULTS: The detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer with prostate imaging reporting and data system category 3, 4, and 5 were 1.0% (1/98), 35.1% (47/134) and 73.1% (57/78), respectively. The factors affecting the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer with prostate imaging reporting and data system categories 4 and 5 were: (i) prostate imaging reporting and data system category 5; (ii) prostate volume <40 cc; (iii) no previous biopsy; (iv) lesion located in the peripheral zone; and (v) prostate‐specific antigen density >0.35 ng/mL/mL. CONCLUSIONS: The detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer on magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound rigid fusion targeted biopsy is very low in patients with prostate imaging reporting and data system category 3; therefore, patients with this classification should not undergo targeted biopsy. Prostate‐specific antigen density, prostate volume, locations of suspected cancer and history of biopsy should be considered to predict the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer with prostate imaging reporting and data system categories 4 and 5. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-11-21 2019-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7379286/ /pubmed/30461076 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/iju.13842 Text en © 2018 The Authors. International Journal of Urology published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of the Japanese Urological Association. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles: Clinical Investigation Hakozaki, Yuji Matsushima, Hisashi Murata, Taro Masuda, Tomoko Hirai, Yoko Oda, Mai Kawauchi, Nobuo Yokoyama, Munehiro Kume, Haruki Detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer in magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography‐fusion transperineal targeted biopsy for lesions with a prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 score of 3–5 |
title | Detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer in magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography‐fusion transperineal targeted biopsy for lesions with a prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 score of 3–5 |
title_full | Detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer in magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography‐fusion transperineal targeted biopsy for lesions with a prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 score of 3–5 |
title_fullStr | Detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer in magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography‐fusion transperineal targeted biopsy for lesions with a prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 score of 3–5 |
title_full_unstemmed | Detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer in magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography‐fusion transperineal targeted biopsy for lesions with a prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 score of 3–5 |
title_short | Detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer in magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography‐fusion transperineal targeted biopsy for lesions with a prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 score of 3–5 |
title_sort | detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer in magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography‐fusion transperineal targeted biopsy for lesions with a prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 score of 3–5 |
topic | Original Articles: Clinical Investigation |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7379286/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30461076 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/iju.13842 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hakozakiyuji detectionrateofclinicallysignificantprostatecancerinmagneticresonanceimagingandultrasonographyfusiontransperinealtargetedbiopsyforlesionswithaprostateimagingreportinganddatasystemversion2scoreof35 AT matsushimahisashi detectionrateofclinicallysignificantprostatecancerinmagneticresonanceimagingandultrasonographyfusiontransperinealtargetedbiopsyforlesionswithaprostateimagingreportinganddatasystemversion2scoreof35 AT muratataro detectionrateofclinicallysignificantprostatecancerinmagneticresonanceimagingandultrasonographyfusiontransperinealtargetedbiopsyforlesionswithaprostateimagingreportinganddatasystemversion2scoreof35 AT masudatomoko detectionrateofclinicallysignificantprostatecancerinmagneticresonanceimagingandultrasonographyfusiontransperinealtargetedbiopsyforlesionswithaprostateimagingreportinganddatasystemversion2scoreof35 AT hiraiyoko detectionrateofclinicallysignificantprostatecancerinmagneticresonanceimagingandultrasonographyfusiontransperinealtargetedbiopsyforlesionswithaprostateimagingreportinganddatasystemversion2scoreof35 AT odamai detectionrateofclinicallysignificantprostatecancerinmagneticresonanceimagingandultrasonographyfusiontransperinealtargetedbiopsyforlesionswithaprostateimagingreportinganddatasystemversion2scoreof35 AT kawauchinobuo detectionrateofclinicallysignificantprostatecancerinmagneticresonanceimagingandultrasonographyfusiontransperinealtargetedbiopsyforlesionswithaprostateimagingreportinganddatasystemversion2scoreof35 AT yokoyamamunehiro detectionrateofclinicallysignificantprostatecancerinmagneticresonanceimagingandultrasonographyfusiontransperinealtargetedbiopsyforlesionswithaprostateimagingreportinganddatasystemversion2scoreof35 AT kumeharuki detectionrateofclinicallysignificantprostatecancerinmagneticresonanceimagingandultrasonographyfusiontransperinealtargetedbiopsyforlesionswithaprostateimagingreportinganddatasystemversion2scoreof35 |