A propensity score-matched analysis on biopsy methods: enhanced detection rates of prostate cancer with combined cognitive fusion-targeted biopsy.

Bi-Ran Ye, Hui Wang, Yong-Qing Zhang, Guo-Wen Lin, Hua Xu, Zhe Hong, Bo Dai, Fang-Ning Wan
{"title":"A propensity score-matched analysis on biopsy methods: enhanced detection rates of prostate cancer with combined cognitive fusion-targeted biopsy.","authors":"Bi-Ran Ye, Hui Wang, Yong-Qing Zhang, Guo-Wen Lin, Hua Xu, Zhe Hong, Bo Dai, Fang-Ning Wan","doi":"10.4103/aja202515","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The choice of biopsy method is critical in diagnosing prostate cancer (PCa). This retrospective cohort study compared systematic biopsy (SB) or cognitive fusion-targeted biopsy combined with SB (CB) in detecting PCa and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Data from 2572 men who underwent either SB or CB in Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (Shanghai, China) between January 2019 and December 2023 were analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance baseline characteristics, and detection rates were compared before and after PSM. Subgroup analyses based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores were performed. Primary and secondary outcomes were the detection rates of PCa and csPCa, respectively. Of 2572 men, 1778 were included in the PSM analysis. Before PSM, CB had higher detection rates for both PCa (62.9% vs 52.4%, odds ratio [OR]: 1.54, P < 0.001) and csPCa (54.9% vs 43.3%, OR: 1.60, P < 0.001) compared to SB. After PSM, CB remained superior in detecting PCa (63.1% vs 47.9%, OR: 1.86, P < 0.001) and csPCa (55.0% vs 38.2%, OR: 1.98, P < 0.001). In patients with PSA 4-12 ng ml-1 (>4 ng ml-1 and ≤12 ng ml-1, which is also applicable to the following text), CB detected more PCa (59.8% vs 40.7%, OR: 2.17, P < 0.001) and csPCa (48.1% vs 27.7%, OR: 2.42, P < 0.001). CB also showed superior csPCa detection in those with PI-RADS 3 lesions (32.1% vs 18.0%, OR: 2.15, P = 0.038). Overall, CB significantly improves PCa and csPCa detection, especially in patients with PSA 4-12 ng ml-1 or PI-RADS 3 lesions.</p>","PeriodicalId":93889,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of andrology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian journal of andrology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/aja202515","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The choice of biopsy method is critical in diagnosing prostate cancer (PCa). This retrospective cohort study compared systematic biopsy (SB) or cognitive fusion-targeted biopsy combined with SB (CB) in detecting PCa and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Data from 2572 men who underwent either SB or CB in Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (Shanghai, China) between January 2019 and December 2023 were analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance baseline characteristics, and detection rates were compared before and after PSM. Subgroup analyses based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scores were performed. Primary and secondary outcomes were the detection rates of PCa and csPCa, respectively. Of 2572 men, 1778 were included in the PSM analysis. Before PSM, CB had higher detection rates for both PCa (62.9% vs 52.4%, odds ratio [OR]: 1.54, P < 0.001) and csPCa (54.9% vs 43.3%, OR: 1.60, P < 0.001) compared to SB. After PSM, CB remained superior in detecting PCa (63.1% vs 47.9%, OR: 1.86, P < 0.001) and csPCa (55.0% vs 38.2%, OR: 1.98, P < 0.001). In patients with PSA 4-12 ng ml-1 (>4 ng ml-1 and ≤12 ng ml-1, which is also applicable to the following text), CB detected more PCa (59.8% vs 40.7%, OR: 2.17, P < 0.001) and csPCa (48.1% vs 27.7%, OR: 2.42, P < 0.001). CB also showed superior csPCa detection in those with PI-RADS 3 lesions (32.1% vs 18.0%, OR: 2.15, P = 0.038). Overall, CB significantly improves PCa and csPCa detection, especially in patients with PSA 4-12 ng ml-1 or PI-RADS 3 lesions.

对活检方法的倾向评分匹配分析:联合认知融合靶向活检提高前列腺癌的检出率。
活检方法的选择是诊断前列腺癌(PCa)的关键。本回顾性队列研究比较了系统性活检(SB)或认知融合靶向活检联合SB (CB)在检测前列腺癌和临床显著性前列腺癌(csPCa)中的作用。分析了2019年1月至2023年12月期间在复旦大学上海癌症中心(中国上海)接受SB或CB治疗的2572名男性的数据。倾向评分匹配(PSM)用于平衡基线特征,并比较PSM前后的检出率。根据前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)水平和前列腺成像报告和数据系统(PI-RADS)评分进行亚组分析。主要和次要结果分别为PCa和csPCa的检出率。在2572名男性中,1778人被纳入PSM分析。PSM前,与SB相比,CB对PCa(62.9%比52.4%,比值比[OR]: 1.54, P < 0.001)和csPCa(54.9%比43.3%,OR: 1.60, P < 0.001)的检出率更高。PSM后,CB对PCa(63.1%比47.9%,OR: 1.86, P < 0.001)和csPCa(55.0%比38.2%,OR: 1.98, P < 0.001)的检出率仍然优于SB。在PSA 4-12 ng ml-1的患者中(>4 ng ml-1和≤12 ng ml-1,也适用于以下文本),CB检出更多的PCa (59.8% vs 40.7%, OR: 2.17, P < 0.001)和csPCa (48.1% vs 27.7%, OR: 2.42, P < 0.001)。CB在PI-RADS 3病变中也显示出更好的csPCa检测(32.1% vs 18.0%, OR: 2.15, P = 0.038)。总体而言,CB显著改善了PCa和csPCa的检测,特别是在PSA为4-12 ng ml-1或PI-RADS 3病变的患者中。
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