Cargando…

A noninferiority within-person study comparing the accuracy of transperineal to transrectal MRI–US fusion biopsy for prostate-cancer detection

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US) fusion prostate-biopsies can be performed in a transrectal (TR-fusion) or transperineal (TP-fusion) approach. Prospective comparative evidence is limited. In this study we compared the detection rate of clinically-significant prostate-...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ber, Yaara, Segal, Niv, Tamir, Shlomit, Benjaminov, Ofer, Yakimov, Maxim, Sela, Sivan, Halstauch, Daniel, Baniel, Jack, Kedar, Daniel, Margel, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7423592/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31953483
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41391-020-0205-7
_version_ 1783570183333347328
author Ber, Yaara
Segal, Niv
Tamir, Shlomit
Benjaminov, Ofer
Yakimov, Maxim
Sela, Sivan
Halstauch, Daniel
Baniel, Jack
Kedar, Daniel
Margel, David
author_facet Ber, Yaara
Segal, Niv
Tamir, Shlomit
Benjaminov, Ofer
Yakimov, Maxim
Sela, Sivan
Halstauch, Daniel
Baniel, Jack
Kedar, Daniel
Margel, David
author_sort Ber, Yaara
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US) fusion prostate-biopsies can be performed in a transrectal (TR-fusion) or transperineal (TP-fusion) approach. Prospective comparative evidence is limited. In this study we compared the detection rate of clinically-significant prostate-cancer (csPCa) within an index lesion between TR and TP-fusion. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, noninferiority, and within-person trial. Men scheduled for MRI–US-fusion with a discrete MRI PI-RRAD ≥ 3 lesion were included. A dominant index lesion was determined for each subject and sampled by TR and TP-fusion during the same session. The order of biopsies was randomized and equipment was reset to avoid chronological and incorporation bias. For each subject, the index lesion was sampled 4–6 times in each approach. All biopsies were performed using Navigo fusion software (UC-Care, Yokneam, Israel). csPCa was defined as: Grade Group ≥ 2 or cancer-core length ≥ 6 mm. We used a noninferiority margin of 10% and a one-sided alpha level of 5%. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients completed the protocol. Median age was 68.2 years (IQR:64.2–72.2), median PSA was 8.9 ng/ml (IQR:6.18–12.2). Ten patients (13%) were biopsy naive, others (87%) had a previous biopsy. csPCa was detected in 32 patients (42%). All of these cases were detected by TP-fusion, while only 20 (26%) by TR-fusion. Absolute difference for csPCa diagnosis was 15.6 (CI 90% 27.9–3.2%) in favor of TP-fusion (p = 0.029). TP-fusion was noninferior to TR-fusion. The lower boundary of the 90% confidence-interval between TP-fusion and TR-fusion was greater than zero, therefore TP-fusion was also found to be superior. Exploratory subgroup analyses showed TP-fusion was consistently associated with higher detection rates of csPCa compared with TR-fusion in patient and index-lesion derived subgroups (size, location, PI-RADS, PSA, and biopsy history). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, TP-fusion biopsies were found to be noninferior and superior to TR-fusion biopsies in detecting csPCa within MRI-visible index lesion. Centers experienced in both TP and TR-fusion should consider these results when choosing biopsy method.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7423592
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74235922020-08-24 A noninferiority within-person study comparing the accuracy of transperineal to transrectal MRI–US fusion biopsy for prostate-cancer detection Ber, Yaara Segal, Niv Tamir, Shlomit Benjaminov, Ofer Yakimov, Maxim Sela, Sivan Halstauch, Daniel Baniel, Jack Kedar, Daniel Margel, David Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Article BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US) fusion prostate-biopsies can be performed in a transrectal (TR-fusion) or transperineal (TP-fusion) approach. Prospective comparative evidence is limited. In this study we compared the detection rate of clinically-significant prostate-cancer (csPCa) within an index lesion between TR and TP-fusion. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, noninferiority, and within-person trial. Men scheduled for MRI–US-fusion with a discrete MRI PI-RRAD ≥ 3 lesion were included. A dominant index lesion was determined for each subject and sampled by TR and TP-fusion during the same session. The order of biopsies was randomized and equipment was reset to avoid chronological and incorporation bias. For each subject, the index lesion was sampled 4–6 times in each approach. All biopsies were performed using Navigo fusion software (UC-Care, Yokneam, Israel). csPCa was defined as: Grade Group ≥ 2 or cancer-core length ≥ 6 mm. We used a noninferiority margin of 10% and a one-sided alpha level of 5%. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients completed the protocol. Median age was 68.2 years (IQR:64.2–72.2), median PSA was 8.9 ng/ml (IQR:6.18–12.2). Ten patients (13%) were biopsy naive, others (87%) had a previous biopsy. csPCa was detected in 32 patients (42%). All of these cases were detected by TP-fusion, while only 20 (26%) by TR-fusion. Absolute difference for csPCa diagnosis was 15.6 (CI 90% 27.9–3.2%) in favor of TP-fusion (p = 0.029). TP-fusion was noninferior to TR-fusion. The lower boundary of the 90% confidence-interval between TP-fusion and TR-fusion was greater than zero, therefore TP-fusion was also found to be superior. Exploratory subgroup analyses showed TP-fusion was consistently associated with higher detection rates of csPCa compared with TR-fusion in patient and index-lesion derived subgroups (size, location, PI-RADS, PSA, and biopsy history). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, TP-fusion biopsies were found to be noninferior and superior to TR-fusion biopsies in detecting csPCa within MRI-visible index lesion. Centers experienced in both TP and TR-fusion should consider these results when choosing biopsy method. Nature Publishing Group UK 2020-01-17 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7423592/ /pubmed/31953483 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41391-020-0205-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Article
Ber, Yaara
Segal, Niv
Tamir, Shlomit
Benjaminov, Ofer
Yakimov, Maxim
Sela, Sivan
Halstauch, Daniel
Baniel, Jack
Kedar, Daniel
Margel, David
A noninferiority within-person study comparing the accuracy of transperineal to transrectal MRI–US fusion biopsy for prostate-cancer detection
title A noninferiority within-person study comparing the accuracy of transperineal to transrectal MRI–US fusion biopsy for prostate-cancer detection
title_full A noninferiority within-person study comparing the accuracy of transperineal to transrectal MRI–US fusion biopsy for prostate-cancer detection
title_fullStr A noninferiority within-person study comparing the accuracy of transperineal to transrectal MRI–US fusion biopsy for prostate-cancer detection
title_full_unstemmed A noninferiority within-person study comparing the accuracy of transperineal to transrectal MRI–US fusion biopsy for prostate-cancer detection
title_short A noninferiority within-person study comparing the accuracy of transperineal to transrectal MRI–US fusion biopsy for prostate-cancer detection
title_sort noninferiority within-person study comparing the accuracy of transperineal to transrectal mri–us fusion biopsy for prostate-cancer detection
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7423592/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31953483
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41391-020-0205-7
work_keys_str_mv AT beryaara anoninferioritywithinpersonstudycomparingtheaccuracyoftransperinealtotransrectalmriusfusionbiopsyforprostatecancerdetection
AT segalniv anoninferioritywithinpersonstudycomparingtheaccuracyoftransperinealtotransrectalmriusfusionbiopsyforprostatecancerdetection
AT tamirshlomit anoninferioritywithinpersonstudycomparingtheaccuracyoftransperinealtotransrectalmriusfusionbiopsyforprostatecancerdetection
AT benjaminovofer anoninferioritywithinpersonstudycomparingtheaccuracyoftransperinealtotransrectalmriusfusionbiopsyforprostatecancerdetection
AT yakimovmaxim anoninferioritywithinpersonstudycomparingtheaccuracyoftransperinealtotransrectalmriusfusionbiopsyforprostatecancerdetection
AT selasivan anoninferioritywithinpersonstudycomparingtheaccuracyoftransperinealtotransrectalmriusfusionbiopsyforprostatecancerdetection
AT halstauchdaniel anoninferioritywithinpersonstudycomparingtheaccuracyoftransperinealtotransrectalmriusfusionbiopsyforprostatecancerdetection
AT banieljack anoninferioritywithinpersonstudycomparingtheaccuracyoftransperinealtotransrectalmriusfusionbiopsyforprostatecancerdetection
AT kedardaniel anoninferioritywithinpersonstudycomparingtheaccuracyoftransperinealtotransrectalmriusfusionbiopsyforprostatecancerdetection
AT margeldavid anoninferioritywithinpersonstudycomparingtheaccuracyoftransperinealtotransrectalmriusfusionbiopsyforprostatecancerdetection
AT beryaara noninferioritywithinpersonstudycomparingtheaccuracyoftransperinealtotransrectalmriusfusionbiopsyforprostatecancerdetection
AT segalniv noninferioritywithinpersonstudycomparingtheaccuracyoftransperinealtotransrectalmriusfusionbiopsyforprostatecancerdetection
AT tamirshlomit noninferioritywithinpersonstudycomparingtheaccuracyoftransperinealtotransrectalmriusfusionbiopsyforprostatecancerdetection
AT benjaminovofer noninferioritywithinpersonstudycomparingtheaccuracyoftransperinealtotransrectalmriusfusionbiopsyforprostatecancerdetection
AT yakimovmaxim noninferioritywithinpersonstudycomparingtheaccuracyoftransperinealtotransrectalmriusfusionbiopsyforprostatecancerdetection
AT selasivan noninferioritywithinpersonstudycomparingtheaccuracyoftransperinealtotransrectalmriusfusionbiopsyforprostatecancerdetection
AT halstauchdaniel noninferioritywithinpersonstudycomparingtheaccuracyoftransperinealtotransrectalmriusfusionbiopsyforprostatecancerdetection
AT banieljack noninferioritywithinpersonstudycomparingtheaccuracyoftransperinealtotransrectalmriusfusionbiopsyforprostatecancerdetection
AT kedardaniel noninferioritywithinpersonstudycomparingtheaccuracyoftransperinealtotransrectalmriusfusionbiopsyforprostatecancerdetection
AT margeldavid noninferioritywithinpersonstudycomparingtheaccuracyoftransperinealtotransrectalmriusfusionbiopsyforprostatecancerdetection