Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A comparative study of prostate cancer detection rate between transperineal cognitive fusion targeted biopsy and software fusion targeted biopsy / 中华泌尿外科杂志
Chinese Journal of Urology ; (12): 661-666, 2020.
Article in Chinese | WPRIM | ID: wpr-869740
ABSTRACT

Objective:

To investigate the difference of prostate cancer (PCa) detection rate between transperineal cognitive fusion targeted biopsy (COG-TB) and software fusion targeted (FUS-TB).

Methods:

We retrospectively analyzed 157 patients accepted transperineal targeted biopsies from December 2018 to December 2019, including 67 cases of COG-TB and 90 cases of FUS-TB. All patients were prostate biopsy na?ve, with PSA levels ≤ 20 ng/ml and prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1 (PI-RADS v2.1) scores ≥ 3. There was no significant difference between COG-TB and FUS-TB in the age [(70.78 ± 8.86) vs. (70.52 ± 8.79) years old], body mass index [(24.36 ± 2.69)vs. (24.14 ± 3.15) kg/m 2], prostate volume [36.69 (27.52, 47.40) vs. 38.81 (28.80, 53.46) cm 3], PSA level [8.27 (6.0, 11.65) vs. 8.88 (6.40, 13.54) ng/ml], PSAD [0.23 (0.15, 0.36) vs. 0.21 (0.14, 0.34) ng/ml 2], suspicious digital rectal examination findings [16 (23.9%) vs. 17 (18.9%)] and PI-RADS scores [24 (35.8%), 24 (35.8%), 19 (28.4%) and 21 (23.3%) vs. 21 (23.3%), 42 (46.7%), 27 (30.0%) for PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5, respectively]. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between the two groups (all P<0.05). The overall and stratified detection rates of PCa and clinically significant prostate cancer (CsPCa) were compared between the two groups. The upgrading rates of Gleason score after radical prostatectomy against biopsy Gleason score were compared between the two groups.

Results:

There was no significant difference between COG-TB and FUS-TB in the detection rate of PCa [76.1% (51/67) vs. 68.9% (62/90), P=0.32]. Also, no significant difference was found in the detection rate of PCa stratified by PSA [0-10ng/ml 69.1% (29/42) vs. 57.1% (28/49); 10-20ng/ml 88.0% (22/25) vs. 82.9% (34/41); all P>0.05] and PI-RADS score [3 45.8% (11/24) vs. 23.8% (5/21); 4 91.7% (22/24) vs. 81.0% (34/42); 5 94.7% (18/19) vs. 85.2% (23/27); all P>0.05]. Similarly, there was no dramatically difference between COG-TB and FUS-TB in the detection rate of CsPCa [58.2% (39//67) vs. 50.0% (45/90), P>0.05]. No significant difference was found in the detection of CsPCa stratified by PSA [0-10ng/ml 45.2% (19/42) vs.36.7% (18/49); 10-20 ng/ml 80.0% (20/25) vs. 65.9% (27/41) ; all P>0.05] and PI-RADS score [3 29.2% (7/24) vs. 9.5% (2/21), 4 66.7% (16/24) vs. 57.1% (24/42), 5 84.2%(16/19) vs. 70.4% (19/27) ; all P>0.05]. Additionally, the two technique was not different significantly in the upgrading rate [28.9% (13/45) vs. 26.2% (11/42), P=0.78].

Conclusions:

There is no significant difference between FUS-TB and COG-TB in the detection rate of PCa and CsPCa, along with the upgrading rate after RP in patients with PSA ≤ 20 ng / ml and PI-RADS v2.1 score≥3.
Full text: Available Index: WPRIM (Western Pacific) Type of study: Diagnostic study Language: Chinese Journal: Chinese Journal of Urology Year: 2020 Type: Article

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS

Full text: Available Index: WPRIM (Western Pacific) Type of study: Diagnostic study Language: Chinese Journal: Chinese Journal of Urology Year: 2020 Type: Article