Cargando…

Selecting patients for magnetic resonance imaging cognitive versus ultrasound fusion biopsy of the prostate: A within‐patient comparison

OBJECTIVES: To compare overall agreement between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–ultrasound (US) fusion biopsy (FB) and MRI cognitive fusion biopsy (CB) of the prostate and determine which factors affect agreement for prostate cancer (PCa) who underwent both modalities in a prospective within‐patie...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hayes, Mitch, Bassale, Solange, Chakiryan, Nicholas H., Boileau, Luc, Grassauer, Jacob, Wagner, Matthew, Foster, Bryan, Coakley, Fergus, Isharwal, Sudhir, Amling, Christopher L., Liu, Jen‐Jane
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9579877/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36267201
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bco2.172
_version_ 1784812276857962496
author Hayes, Mitch
Bassale, Solange
Chakiryan, Nicholas H.
Boileau, Luc
Grassauer, Jacob
Wagner, Matthew
Foster, Bryan
Coakley, Fergus
Isharwal, Sudhir
Amling, Christopher L.
Liu, Jen‐Jane
author_facet Hayes, Mitch
Bassale, Solange
Chakiryan, Nicholas H.
Boileau, Luc
Grassauer, Jacob
Wagner, Matthew
Foster, Bryan
Coakley, Fergus
Isharwal, Sudhir
Amling, Christopher L.
Liu, Jen‐Jane
author_sort Hayes, Mitch
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To compare overall agreement between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–ultrasound (US) fusion biopsy (FB) and MRI cognitive fusion biopsy (CB) of the prostate and determine which factors affect agreement for prostate cancer (PCa) who underwent both modalities in a prospective within‐patient protocol. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From August 2017 to January 2021, patients with at least one Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI‐RADS) 3 or higher lesion on multiparametric MRI underwent transrectal FB and CB in a prospective within‐patient protocol. CB was performed for each region of interest (ROI), followed by FB, followed by standard 12 core biopsy. Patients who were not on active surveillance were analysed. The primary endpoint was agreement for any PCa detection. McNemar's test and kappa statistic were used to analyse agreement. Chi‐square test, Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon rank sum test were used to analyse disagreement across clinical and MRI spatial variables. A multivariable generalized mixed‐effect model was used to compare the interaction between select variables and fusion modality. Statistics were performed using SAS and R. RESULTS: Ninety patients and 98 lesions were included in the analysis. There was moderate agreement between FB and CB (k = 0.715). McNemar's test was insignificant (p = 0.285). Anterior location was the only variable associated with a significant variation in agreement, which was 70% for anterior lesions versus 89.7% for non‐anterior lesions (p = 0.035). Discordance did not vary significantly across other variables. In a mixed‐effect model, the interaction between anterior location and use of FB was insignificant (p = 0.411). CONCLUSION: In a within‐patient protocol of patients not on active surveillance, FB and CB performed similarly for PCa detection and with moderate agreement. Anterior location was associated with significantly higher disagreement, whereas other patient and lesion characteristics were not. Additional studies are needed to determine optimal biopsy technique for sampling anterior ROI.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9579877
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95798772022-10-19 Selecting patients for magnetic resonance imaging cognitive versus ultrasound fusion biopsy of the prostate: A within‐patient comparison Hayes, Mitch Bassale, Solange Chakiryan, Nicholas H. Boileau, Luc Grassauer, Jacob Wagner, Matthew Foster, Bryan Coakley, Fergus Isharwal, Sudhir Amling, Christopher L. Liu, Jen‐Jane BJUI Compass To the Clinic OBJECTIVES: To compare overall agreement between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–ultrasound (US) fusion biopsy (FB) and MRI cognitive fusion biopsy (CB) of the prostate and determine which factors affect agreement for prostate cancer (PCa) who underwent both modalities in a prospective within‐patient protocol. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From August 2017 to January 2021, patients with at least one Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI‐RADS) 3 or higher lesion on multiparametric MRI underwent transrectal FB and CB in a prospective within‐patient protocol. CB was performed for each region of interest (ROI), followed by FB, followed by standard 12 core biopsy. Patients who were not on active surveillance were analysed. The primary endpoint was agreement for any PCa detection. McNemar's test and kappa statistic were used to analyse agreement. Chi‐square test, Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon rank sum test were used to analyse disagreement across clinical and MRI spatial variables. A multivariable generalized mixed‐effect model was used to compare the interaction between select variables and fusion modality. Statistics were performed using SAS and R. RESULTS: Ninety patients and 98 lesions were included in the analysis. There was moderate agreement between FB and CB (k = 0.715). McNemar's test was insignificant (p = 0.285). Anterior location was the only variable associated with a significant variation in agreement, which was 70% for anterior lesions versus 89.7% for non‐anterior lesions (p = 0.035). Discordance did not vary significantly across other variables. In a mixed‐effect model, the interaction between anterior location and use of FB was insignificant (p = 0.411). CONCLUSION: In a within‐patient protocol of patients not on active surveillance, FB and CB performed similarly for PCa detection and with moderate agreement. Anterior location was associated with significantly higher disagreement, whereas other patient and lesion characteristics were not. Additional studies are needed to determine optimal biopsy technique for sampling anterior ROI. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-06-05 /pmc/articles/PMC9579877/ /pubmed/36267201 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bco2.172 Text en © 2022 The Authors. BJUI Compass published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International Company. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle To the Clinic
Hayes, Mitch
Bassale, Solange
Chakiryan, Nicholas H.
Boileau, Luc
Grassauer, Jacob
Wagner, Matthew
Foster, Bryan
Coakley, Fergus
Isharwal, Sudhir
Amling, Christopher L.
Liu, Jen‐Jane
Selecting patients for magnetic resonance imaging cognitive versus ultrasound fusion biopsy of the prostate: A within‐patient comparison
title Selecting patients for magnetic resonance imaging cognitive versus ultrasound fusion biopsy of the prostate: A within‐patient comparison
title_full Selecting patients for magnetic resonance imaging cognitive versus ultrasound fusion biopsy of the prostate: A within‐patient comparison
title_fullStr Selecting patients for magnetic resonance imaging cognitive versus ultrasound fusion biopsy of the prostate: A within‐patient comparison
title_full_unstemmed Selecting patients for magnetic resonance imaging cognitive versus ultrasound fusion biopsy of the prostate: A within‐patient comparison
title_short Selecting patients for magnetic resonance imaging cognitive versus ultrasound fusion biopsy of the prostate: A within‐patient comparison
title_sort selecting patients for magnetic resonance imaging cognitive versus ultrasound fusion biopsy of the prostate: a within‐patient comparison
topic To the Clinic
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9579877/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36267201
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bco2.172
work_keys_str_mv AT hayesmitch selectingpatientsformagneticresonanceimagingcognitiveversusultrasoundfusionbiopsyoftheprostateawithinpatientcomparison
AT bassalesolange selectingpatientsformagneticresonanceimagingcognitiveversusultrasoundfusionbiopsyoftheprostateawithinpatientcomparison
AT chakiryannicholash selectingpatientsformagneticresonanceimagingcognitiveversusultrasoundfusionbiopsyoftheprostateawithinpatientcomparison
AT boileauluc selectingpatientsformagneticresonanceimagingcognitiveversusultrasoundfusionbiopsyoftheprostateawithinpatientcomparison
AT grassauerjacob selectingpatientsformagneticresonanceimagingcognitiveversusultrasoundfusionbiopsyoftheprostateawithinpatientcomparison
AT wagnermatthew selectingpatientsformagneticresonanceimagingcognitiveversusultrasoundfusionbiopsyoftheprostateawithinpatientcomparison
AT fosterbryan selectingpatientsformagneticresonanceimagingcognitiveversusultrasoundfusionbiopsyoftheprostateawithinpatientcomparison
AT coakleyfergus selectingpatientsformagneticresonanceimagingcognitiveversusultrasoundfusionbiopsyoftheprostateawithinpatientcomparison
AT isharwalsudhir selectingpatientsformagneticresonanceimagingcognitiveversusultrasoundfusionbiopsyoftheprostateawithinpatientcomparison
AT amlingchristopherl selectingpatientsformagneticresonanceimagingcognitiveversusultrasoundfusionbiopsyoftheprostateawithinpatientcomparison
AT liujenjane selectingpatientsformagneticresonanceimagingcognitiveversusultrasoundfusionbiopsyoftheprostateawithinpatientcomparison