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-...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |