Cargando…

Micro-ultrasound Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance

Accurate assessment of tumor grade is critical for active surveillance (AS) in prostate cancer. We compared magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and micro-ultrasound scoring (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] v2.1 vs Prostate Risk Identification using Micro-ultrasound [PRI-MUS]) in 12...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Albers, Patrick, Wang, Betty, Broomfield, Stacey, Medina Martín, Anaïs, Fung, Christopher, Kinnaird, Adam
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9618766/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36325366
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2022.09.019
_version_ 1784821126380126208
author Albers, Patrick
Wang, Betty
Broomfield, Stacey
Medina Martín, Anaïs
Fung, Christopher
Kinnaird, Adam
author_facet Albers, Patrick
Wang, Betty
Broomfield, Stacey
Medina Martín, Anaïs
Fung, Christopher
Kinnaird, Adam
author_sort Albers, Patrick
collection PubMed
description Accurate assessment of tumor grade is critical for active surveillance (AS) in prostate cancer. We compared magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and micro-ultrasound scoring (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] v2.1 vs Prostate Risk Identification using Micro-ultrasound [PRI-MUS]) in 128 men on AS. The primary outcome was upgrading to Gleason grade group (GG) ≥2. There was no difference in GG ≥2 detection between the imaging techniques (PRI-MUS score ≥3: 33/34, 98%; PI-RADS score ≥3: 29/34, 85%; p = 0.22). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for GG ≥2 detection were 97%, 32%, 34%, and 97% with PRI-MUS ≥3, and 85%, 53%, 40%, and 91% with PI-RADS ≥3, respectively. Upgrading to GG ≥2 was more likely for PRI-MUS ≥3 than for PRI-MUS ≤2 scores (odds ratio 15.5, 95% confidence interval 2.0–118.5). A limitation is the lack of blinding to the MRI results. In conclusion, detection of upgrading to GG ≥2 during AS appears similar when using micro-ultrasound or MRI to inform prostate biopsy. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at a novel imaging technology, micro-ultrasound, in patients undergoing biopsy during active surveillance for prostate cancer. We found that micro-ultrasound can detect prostate cancer that may require treatment at a similar rate to that with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9618766
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96187662022-11-01 Micro-ultrasound Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Albers, Patrick Wang, Betty Broomfield, Stacey Medina Martín, Anaïs Fung, Christopher Kinnaird, Adam Eur Urol Open Sci Brief Correspondence Accurate assessment of tumor grade is critical for active surveillance (AS) in prostate cancer. We compared magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and micro-ultrasound scoring (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] v2.1 vs Prostate Risk Identification using Micro-ultrasound [PRI-MUS]) in 128 men on AS. The primary outcome was upgrading to Gleason grade group (GG) ≥2. There was no difference in GG ≥2 detection between the imaging techniques (PRI-MUS score ≥3: 33/34, 98%; PI-RADS score ≥3: 29/34, 85%; p = 0.22). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for GG ≥2 detection were 97%, 32%, 34%, and 97% with PRI-MUS ≥3, and 85%, 53%, 40%, and 91% with PI-RADS ≥3, respectively. Upgrading to GG ≥2 was more likely for PRI-MUS ≥3 than for PRI-MUS ≤2 scores (odds ratio 15.5, 95% confidence interval 2.0–118.5). A limitation is the lack of blinding to the MRI results. In conclusion, detection of upgrading to GG ≥2 during AS appears similar when using micro-ultrasound or MRI to inform prostate biopsy. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at a novel imaging technology, micro-ultrasound, in patients undergoing biopsy during active surveillance for prostate cancer. We found that micro-ultrasound can detect prostate cancer that may require treatment at a similar rate to that with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. Elsevier 2022-10-25 /pmc/articles/PMC9618766/ /pubmed/36325366 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2022.09.019 Text en © 2022 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Brief Correspondence
Albers, Patrick
Wang, Betty
Broomfield, Stacey
Medina Martín, Anaïs
Fung, Christopher
Kinnaird, Adam
Micro-ultrasound Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance
title Micro-ultrasound Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance
title_full Micro-ultrasound Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance
title_fullStr Micro-ultrasound Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance
title_full_unstemmed Micro-ultrasound Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance
title_short Micro-ultrasound Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance
title_sort micro-ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer active surveillance
topic Brief Correspondence
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9618766/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36325366
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2022.09.019
work_keys_str_mv AT alberspatrick microultrasoundversusmagneticresonanceimaginginprostatecanceractivesurveillance
AT wangbetty microultrasoundversusmagneticresonanceimaginginprostatecanceractivesurveillance
AT broomfieldstacey microultrasoundversusmagneticresonanceimaginginprostatecanceractivesurveillance
AT medinamartinanais microultrasoundversusmagneticresonanceimaginginprostatecanceractivesurveillance
AT fungchristopher microultrasoundversusmagneticresonanceimaginginprostatecanceractivesurveillance
AT kinnairdadam microultrasoundversusmagneticresonanceimaginginprostatecanceractivesurveillance