Comparison of systematic and combined biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer.

Asian journal of andrology Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-14 DOI:10.4103/aja202412
Jin-Lun Huang, Da Huang, Tsun-Tsun Chun, Chi Yao, Yong-Le Zhan, Xiao-Hao Ruan, Terence Chun-Ting Lai, Chiu-Fung Tsang, Karl-Ho Pang, Ada Tsui-Lin Ng, Dan-Feng Xu, Brian Sze-Ho Ho, Rong Na
{"title":"Comparison of systematic and combined biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer.","authors":"Jin-Lun Huang, Da Huang, Tsun-Tsun Chun, Chi Yao, Yong-Le Zhan, Xiao-Hao Ruan, Terence Chun-Ting Lai, Chiu-Fung Tsang, Karl-Ho Pang, Ada Tsui-Lin Ng, Dan-Feng Xu, Brian Sze-Ho Ho, Rong Na","doi":"10.4103/aja202412","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Systematic prostate biopsy has limitations, such as overdiagnosis of clinically insignificant prostate cancer and underdiagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy, a promising alternative, might improve diagnostic accuracy. To compare the cancer detection rates of systematic biopsy and combined biopsy (systematic biopsy plus MRI-targeted biopsy) in Asian men, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of men who underwent either systematic biopsy or combined biopsy at two medical centers (Queen Mary Hospital and Tung Wah Hospital, Hong Kong, China) from July 2015 to December 2022. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. The primary and secondary outcomes were prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer. A total of 1391 participants were enrolled. The overall prostate cancer detection rates did not significantly differ between the two groups (36.3% vs 36.6%, odds ratio [OR] = 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81-1.26, P = 0.92). However, combined biopsy showed a significant advantage in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥ 3+4) in patients with a total serum prostate-specific antigen (tPSA) concentration of 2-10 ng ml -1 (systematic vs combined: 11.9% vs 17.5%, OR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.08-2.31, P = 0.02). Specifically, in the transperineal biopsy subgroup, combined biopsy significantly outperformed systematic biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (systematic vs combined: 12.6% vs 24.0%, OR = 2.19, 95% CI: 1.21-3.97, P = 0.01). These findings suggest that in patients with a tPSA concentration of 2-10 ng ml -1 , MRI-targeted biopsy may be of greater predictive value than systematic biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.</p>","PeriodicalId":93889,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of andrology","volume":" ","pages":"517-521"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11449415/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian journal of andrology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/aja202412","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: Systematic prostate biopsy has limitations, such as overdiagnosis of clinically insignificant prostate cancer and underdiagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy, a promising alternative, might improve diagnostic accuracy. To compare the cancer detection rates of systematic biopsy and combined biopsy (systematic biopsy plus MRI-targeted biopsy) in Asian men, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of men who underwent either systematic biopsy or combined biopsy at two medical centers (Queen Mary Hospital and Tung Wah Hospital, Hong Kong, China) from July 2015 to December 2022. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. The primary and secondary outcomes were prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer. A total of 1391 participants were enrolled. The overall prostate cancer detection rates did not significantly differ between the two groups (36.3% vs 36.6%, odds ratio [OR] = 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81-1.26, P = 0.92). However, combined biopsy showed a significant advantage in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥ 3+4) in patients with a total serum prostate-specific antigen (tPSA) concentration of 2-10 ng ml -1 (systematic vs combined: 11.9% vs 17.5%, OR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.08-2.31, P = 0.02). Specifically, in the transperineal biopsy subgroup, combined biopsy significantly outperformed systematic biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (systematic vs combined: 12.6% vs 24.0%, OR = 2.19, 95% CI: 1.21-3.97, P = 0.01). These findings suggest that in patients with a tPSA concentration of 2-10 ng ml -1 , MRI-targeted biopsy may be of greater predictive value than systematic biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

系统活检与联合活检在检测前列腺癌方面的比较。
摘要:系统性前列腺活组织检查有其局限性,如过度诊断临床症状不明显的前列腺癌和诊断临床症状明显的前列腺癌。磁共振成像(MRI)引导下的活检是一种很有前途的替代方法,可提高诊断准确性。为了比较亚洲男性接受系统活检和联合活检(系统活检加磁共振成像靶向活检)的癌症检出率,我们对2015年7月至2022年12月期间在两家医疗中心(中国香港玛丽医院和东华医院)接受系统活检或联合活检的男性进行了回顾性队列研究。研究人员计算了描述性统计数字,并进行了单变量和多变量逻辑回归分析。主要和次要结果为前列腺癌和有临床意义的前列腺癌。共有 1391 名参与者参加了研究。两组的前列腺癌总检出率无明显差异(36.3% vs 36.6%,几率比 [OR] = 1.01,95% 置信区间 [CI]:0.81-1.26,P<0.05):0.81-1.26, P = 0.92).然而,对于血清总前列腺特异性抗原(tPSA)浓度为 2-10 纳克/毫升-1 的患者,联合活检在发现有临床意义的前列腺癌(格里森评分≥ 3+4)方面具有显著优势(系统活检 vs 联合活检:11.9% vs 17.5%):11.9% vs 17.5%,OR = 1.58,95% CI:1.08-2.31,P = 0.02)。具体而言,在经会阴活检亚组中,联合活检在发现有临床意义的前列腺癌方面明显优于系统活检(系统活检 vs 联合活检:12.6% vs 24.0%,P = 0.02):12.6% vs 24.0%,OR = 2.19,95% CI:1.21-3.97,P = 0.01)。这些研究结果表明,对于tPSA浓度为2-10纳克/毫升-1的患者,磁共振成像靶向活检可能比系统性活检在检测有临床意义的前列腺癌方面具有更高的预测价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信