Cargando…

Do cancer detection rates differ between transperineal and transrectal micro-ultrasound mpMRI-fusion-targeted prostate biopsies? A propensity score-matched study

INTRODUCTION: High-resolution micro-ultrasound (micro-US) is a novel precise imaging modality that allows targeted prostate biopsies and multiparametric magnet resonance imaging (mpMRI) fusion. Its high resolution relying on a 29 MHz transducer allows real-time visualisation of prostate cancer lesio...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rakauskas, Arnas, Peters, Max, Martel, Paul, van Rossum, Peter S. N., La Rosa, Stefano, Meuwly, Jean-Yves, Roth, Beat, Valerio, Massimo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9847953/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36652429
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280262
_version_ 1784871589920112640
author Rakauskas, Arnas
Peters, Max
Martel, Paul
van Rossum, Peter S. N.
La Rosa, Stefano
Meuwly, Jean-Yves
Roth, Beat
Valerio, Massimo
author_facet Rakauskas, Arnas
Peters, Max
Martel, Paul
van Rossum, Peter S. N.
La Rosa, Stefano
Meuwly, Jean-Yves
Roth, Beat
Valerio, Massimo
author_sort Rakauskas, Arnas
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: High-resolution micro-ultrasound (micro-US) is a novel precise imaging modality that allows targeted prostate biopsies and multiparametric magnet resonance imaging (mpMRI) fusion. Its high resolution relying on a 29 MHz transducer allows real-time visualisation of prostate cancer lesions; this might overcome the inaccuracy of conventional MRI-US fusion biopsy strategies. We compared cancer detection rates in patients who underwent transrectal (TR-B) versus transperineal (TP-B) MR-micro-US fusion biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 1:2 propensity score matching was performed in 322 consecutive procedures: 56 TR-B and 266 TP-B. All prostate biopsies were performed using ExactVu(TM) micro-US system with mpMRI image fusion. Clinically significant disease was defined as grade group ≥2. The primary objective was to evaluate the detection of clinically significant disease according to access route. The secondary outcomes were to compare the respective detection rates of random and targeted biopsies stratified per access route and to evaluate micro-US for its potential added value. RESULTS: 47 men undergoing TR-B and 88 undergoing TP-B were matched for age, PSA, clinical stage, prostate volume, PIRADS score, number of mpMRI-visible lesions and indication to biopsy. The detection rates of clinically significant and of any prostate cancer did not differ between the two groups (45% TR-B vs 42% TP-B; p = 0.8, and 57% TR-B vs 59% TP-B; p = 0.9, respectively). Detection rates also did not differ significantly between random (p = 0.4) and targeted biopsies (p = 0.7) stratified per access route. Micro-US targeted biopsy detected 36 MRI-invisible lesions in 33 patients; 19% of these lesions were positive for clinically significant disease. Overall, micro-US targeted biopsies upgraded 2% of patients to clinically significant disease that would have been missed otherwise. CONCLUSIONS: MR-micro-US-fusion TR-B and TP-B have similar diagnostic yields in terms of detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer. Micro-US targeted biopsy appears to have an additional diagnostic value over systematic and MRI-targeted biopsies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9847953
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98479532023-01-19 Do cancer detection rates differ between transperineal and transrectal micro-ultrasound mpMRI-fusion-targeted prostate biopsies? A propensity score-matched study Rakauskas, Arnas Peters, Max Martel, Paul van Rossum, Peter S. N. La Rosa, Stefano Meuwly, Jean-Yves Roth, Beat Valerio, Massimo PLoS One Research Article INTRODUCTION: High-resolution micro-ultrasound (micro-US) is a novel precise imaging modality that allows targeted prostate biopsies and multiparametric magnet resonance imaging (mpMRI) fusion. Its high resolution relying on a 29 MHz transducer allows real-time visualisation of prostate cancer lesions; this might overcome the inaccuracy of conventional MRI-US fusion biopsy strategies. We compared cancer detection rates in patients who underwent transrectal (TR-B) versus transperineal (TP-B) MR-micro-US fusion biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 1:2 propensity score matching was performed in 322 consecutive procedures: 56 TR-B and 266 TP-B. All prostate biopsies were performed using ExactVu(TM) micro-US system with mpMRI image fusion. Clinically significant disease was defined as grade group ≥2. The primary objective was to evaluate the detection of clinically significant disease according to access route. The secondary outcomes were to compare the respective detection rates of random and targeted biopsies stratified per access route and to evaluate micro-US for its potential added value. RESULTS: 47 men undergoing TR-B and 88 undergoing TP-B were matched for age, PSA, clinical stage, prostate volume, PIRADS score, number of mpMRI-visible lesions and indication to biopsy. The detection rates of clinically significant and of any prostate cancer did not differ between the two groups (45% TR-B vs 42% TP-B; p = 0.8, and 57% TR-B vs 59% TP-B; p = 0.9, respectively). Detection rates also did not differ significantly between random (p = 0.4) and targeted biopsies (p = 0.7) stratified per access route. Micro-US targeted biopsy detected 36 MRI-invisible lesions in 33 patients; 19% of these lesions were positive for clinically significant disease. Overall, micro-US targeted biopsies upgraded 2% of patients to clinically significant disease that would have been missed otherwise. CONCLUSIONS: MR-micro-US-fusion TR-B and TP-B have similar diagnostic yields in terms of detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer. Micro-US targeted biopsy appears to have an additional diagnostic value over systematic and MRI-targeted biopsies. Public Library of Science 2023-01-18 /pmc/articles/PMC9847953/ /pubmed/36652429 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280262 Text en © 2023 Rakauskas et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Rakauskas, Arnas
Peters, Max
Martel, Paul
van Rossum, Peter S. N.
La Rosa, Stefano
Meuwly, Jean-Yves
Roth, Beat
Valerio, Massimo
Do cancer detection rates differ between transperineal and transrectal micro-ultrasound mpMRI-fusion-targeted prostate biopsies? A propensity score-matched study
title Do cancer detection rates differ between transperineal and transrectal micro-ultrasound mpMRI-fusion-targeted prostate biopsies? A propensity score-matched study
title_full Do cancer detection rates differ between transperineal and transrectal micro-ultrasound mpMRI-fusion-targeted prostate biopsies? A propensity score-matched study
title_fullStr Do cancer detection rates differ between transperineal and transrectal micro-ultrasound mpMRI-fusion-targeted prostate biopsies? A propensity score-matched study
title_full_unstemmed Do cancer detection rates differ between transperineal and transrectal micro-ultrasound mpMRI-fusion-targeted prostate biopsies? A propensity score-matched study
title_short Do cancer detection rates differ between transperineal and transrectal micro-ultrasound mpMRI-fusion-targeted prostate biopsies? A propensity score-matched study
title_sort do cancer detection rates differ between transperineal and transrectal micro-ultrasound mpmri-fusion-targeted prostate biopsies? a propensity score-matched study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9847953/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36652429
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280262
work_keys_str_mv AT rakauskasarnas docancerdetectionratesdifferbetweentransperinealandtransrectalmicroultrasoundmpmrifusiontargetedprostatebiopsiesapropensityscorematchedstudy
AT petersmax docancerdetectionratesdifferbetweentransperinealandtransrectalmicroultrasoundmpmrifusiontargetedprostatebiopsiesapropensityscorematchedstudy
AT martelpaul docancerdetectionratesdifferbetweentransperinealandtransrectalmicroultrasoundmpmrifusiontargetedprostatebiopsiesapropensityscorematchedstudy
AT vanrossumpetersn docancerdetectionratesdifferbetweentransperinealandtransrectalmicroultrasoundmpmrifusiontargetedprostatebiopsiesapropensityscorematchedstudy
AT larosastefano docancerdetectionratesdifferbetweentransperinealandtransrectalmicroultrasoundmpmrifusiontargetedprostatebiopsiesapropensityscorematchedstudy
AT meuwlyjeanyves docancerdetectionratesdifferbetweentransperinealandtransrectalmicroultrasoundmpmrifusiontargetedprostatebiopsiesapropensityscorematchedstudy
AT rothbeat docancerdetectionratesdifferbetweentransperinealandtransrectalmicroultrasoundmpmrifusiontargetedprostatebiopsiesapropensityscorematchedstudy
AT valeriomassimo docancerdetectionratesdifferbetweentransperinealandtransrectalmicroultrasoundmpmrifusiontargetedprostatebiopsiesapropensityscorematchedstudy