Use of bpMRI-based cognitive fusion targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy in patients with PI-RADS≥3 / 中华泌尿外科杂志

ABSTRACT

Objective:To investigate the use of bi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI)-based cognitive fusion targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy in patients with prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS)≥3.Methods:The clinical data of 220 patients with PI-RADS ≥3 who underwent bpMRI-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) cognitive fusion targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy in the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University from May 2018 to November 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. The median age was 66 (60, 73) years old, median prostate specific antigen (PSA) was 8.73 (6.52, 11.93) ng/ml, medlian prostate volume was 39.25(29.26, 58.39) ml and the mean body mass index (BMI) was (24.02±2.60) kg/m 2. For each patient, bpMRI-TRUS cognitive fusion targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy were performed by two independent experienced urologists. The primary endpoint was the detection rate of CsPCa-A [clinically significant prostate cancer-A, defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group 2 or higher tumors]. The secondary endpoints were the detection rates of CsPCa-B (defined as ISUP grade group 3 or higher tumors) and CIPCa (clinically insignificant prostate cancer, defined as ISUP grade group 1 tumors). McNemar test and Chi-square test were used to compare the positive rates of CsPCa-A, CsPCa-B and CIPCa between targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy. Results:In this study, 112 patients (50.91%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer, and the detection was 42.73% (94/220) in targeted biopsy and 46.82% (103/220) in systematic biopsy.CsPCa-A was detected in 84 (38.18%) patients. Detection of CsPCa-A by targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy was not different significantly [30.00% (66/220) vs.34.09% (75/220), P=0.120]. CsPCa-A would have been missed in 8.18% (18/220) patients had not performed systematic biopsy, and in 4.09% (9/220) patients had not performed targeted biopsy. CsPCa-B was detected in 26.36% (58/220) patients. Detection of CsPCa-B by targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy was not different significantly [20.00% (44/220) vs. 23.18% (51/220), P=0.190]. CsPCa-B would have been missed in 6.36% (14/220) patients had not performed systematic biopsy, and in 3.18% (7/220) patients had not performed targeted biopsy. In addition, there was no difference in the positive rates of CIPCa between targeted biopsy combined with systematic biopsy, targeted biopsy only or systematic biopsy only [all three were 12.73% (28/220), P=1.000]. Nine post-biopsy adverse events were reported, including 5 cases of infection, 2 cases of vagal reflex and 2 cases of urinary retention. All of them were improved after symptomatic treatment. Conclusions:No significant difference was identified in the detection rate of CsPCa between targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy. However, combination of targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy could further improve the detection rate of CsPCa without increasing the detection of CIPCa. Therefore, a pre-biopsy bpMRI did have significant importance in the biopsy-na?ve patients, but did not seem to skip the need for systematic biopsy.