Transperineal versus Transrectal MRI/TRUS fusion-guided prostate biopsy in a large, ethnically diverse, and multiracial cohort.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Lorenzo Storino Ramacciotti, David Strauss, Francesco Cei, Masatomo Kaneko, Daniel Mokhtar, Jie Cai, Delara Jadvar, Giovanni E Cacciamani, Manju Aron, Pierre B Halteh, Vinay Duddalwar, Inderbir Gill, Andre Luis Abreu
{"title":"Transperineal versus Transrectal MRI/TRUS fusion-guided prostate biopsy in a large, ethnically diverse, and multiracial cohort.","authors":"Lorenzo Storino Ramacciotti, David Strauss, Francesco Cei, Masatomo Kaneko, Daniel Mokhtar, Jie Cai, Delara Jadvar, Giovanni E Cacciamani, Manju Aron, Pierre B Halteh, Vinay Duddalwar, Inderbir Gill, Andre Luis Abreu","doi":"10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2024.0354","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare transperineal (TP) vs transrectal (TR) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion-guided prostate biopsy (PBx) in a large, ethnically diverse and multiracial cohort.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Consecutive patients who underwent multiparametric (mp) MRI followed by TP or TR TRUS-fusion guided PBx, were identified from a prospective database (IRB #HS-13-00663). All patients underwent mpMRI followed by 12-14 core systematic PBx. A minimum of two additional target-biopsy cores were taken per PIRADS≥3 lesion. The endpoint was the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa; Grade Group, GG≥2). Statistical significance was defined as p<0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1491 patients met inclusion criteria, with 480 undergoing TP and 1011 TR PBx. Overall, 11% of patients were Asians, 5% African Americans, 14% Hispanic, 14% Others, and 56% White, similar between TP and TR (p=0.4). For PIRADS 3-5, the TP PBx CSPCa detection was significantly higher (61% vs 54%, p=0.03) than TR PBx, but not for PIRADS 1-2 (13% vs 13%, p=1.0). After adjusting for confounders on multivariable analysis, Black race, but not the PBx approach (TP vs TR), was an independent predictor of CSPCa detection. The median maximum cancer core length (11 vs 8mm; p<0.001) and percent (80% vs 60%; p<0.001) were greater for TP PBx even after adjusting for confounders.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In a large and diverse cohort, Black race, but not the biopsy approach, was an independent predictor for CSPCa detection. TP and TR PBx yielded similar CSPCa detection rates; however the TP PBx was histologically more informative.</p>","PeriodicalId":49283,"journal":{"name":"International Braz J Urol","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11446557/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Braz J Urol","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2024.0354","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare transperineal (TP) vs transrectal (TR) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion-guided prostate biopsy (PBx) in a large, ethnically diverse and multiracial cohort.

Materials and methods: Consecutive patients who underwent multiparametric (mp) MRI followed by TP or TR TRUS-fusion guided PBx, were identified from a prospective database (IRB #HS-13-00663). All patients underwent mpMRI followed by 12-14 core systematic PBx. A minimum of two additional target-biopsy cores were taken per PIRADS≥3 lesion. The endpoint was the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa; Grade Group, GG≥2). Statistical significance was defined as p<0.05.

Results: A total of 1491 patients met inclusion criteria, with 480 undergoing TP and 1011 TR PBx. Overall, 11% of patients were Asians, 5% African Americans, 14% Hispanic, 14% Others, and 56% White, similar between TP and TR (p=0.4). For PIRADS 3-5, the TP PBx CSPCa detection was significantly higher (61% vs 54%, p=0.03) than TR PBx, but not for PIRADS 1-2 (13% vs 13%, p=1.0). After adjusting for confounders on multivariable analysis, Black race, but not the PBx approach (TP vs TR), was an independent predictor of CSPCa detection. The median maximum cancer core length (11 vs 8mm; p<0.001) and percent (80% vs 60%; p<0.001) were greater for TP PBx even after adjusting for confounders.

Conclusions: In a large and diverse cohort, Black race, but not the biopsy approach, was an independent predictor for CSPCa detection. TP and TR PBx yielded similar CSPCa detection rates; however the TP PBx was histologically more informative.

经会阴与经直肠 MRI/TRUS 融合引导的前列腺活检在一个大型、种族多元化和多种族队列中的应用。
目的:在一个大型、种族多样化和多种族队列中,比较经会阴(TP)与经直肠(TR)磁共振成像(MRI)和经直肠超声(TRUS)融合引导的前列腺活检(PBx):从前瞻性数据库(IRB #HS-13-00663)中确定了接受多参数(mp)磁共振成像(MRI)后在TP或TR TRUS融合引导下进行前列腺活检的连续患者。所有患者都接受了 mpMRI 检查,然后进行了 12-14 次核心系统 PBx。每个PIRADS≥3病变至少再取两个靶活检核心。终点是检测出有临床意义的前列腺癌(CSPCa;分级组,GG≥2)。统计学意义定义为 p结果:共有 1491 名患者符合纳入标准,其中 480 人接受了前列腺癌根治术,1011 人接受了前列腺癌根治术。总体而言,11%的患者为亚洲人,5%为非裔美国人,14%为西班牙裔,14%为其他族裔,56%为白人,TP和TR的情况相似(P=0.4)。在 PIRADS 3-5 中,TP PBx 的 CSPCa 检出率(61% vs 54%,p=0.03)明显高于 TR PBx,但在 PIRADS 1-2 中却不尽相同(13% vs 13%,p=1.0)。在多变量分析中对混杂因素进行调整后,黑人种族是 CSPCa 检测的独立预测因素,而不是 PBx 方法(TP vs TR)。最大癌芯长度的中位数(11 mm vs 8 mm; p结论:在一个庞大而多样化的队列中,黑人种族而非活检方法是CSPCa检测的独立预测因素。TP和TR活组织切片检查的CSPCa检出率相似,但TP活组织切片检查的组织学信息量更大。
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
International Braz J Urol
International Braz J Urol UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
21.60%
发文量
246
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Information not localized
×
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