Comparison of transperineal and transrectal targeted prostate biopsy using Mahalanobis distance matching within propensity score caliper method: A multicenter study of Turkish Urooncology Association.

The Prostate Pub Date : 2022-03-01 Epub Date: 2021-12-20 DOI:10.1002/pros.24288
Murat Yavuz Koparal, Tevfik Sinan Sözen, Nejdet Karşıyakalı, Güven Aslan, Bülent Akdoğan, Bahadır Şahin, Levent Türkeri
{"title":"Comparison of transperineal and transrectal targeted prostate biopsy using Mahalanobis distance matching within propensity score caliper method: A multicenter study of Turkish Urooncology Association.","authors":"Murat Yavuz Koparal,&nbsp;Tevfik Sinan Sözen,&nbsp;Nejdet Karşıyakalı,&nbsp;Güven Aslan,&nbsp;Bülent Akdoğan,&nbsp;Bahadır Şahin,&nbsp;Levent Türkeri","doi":"10.1002/pros.24288","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC)-detecting results of transperineal and transrectal targeted biopsy (TPTB and TRTB, respectively) by performing matching analysis.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This study has used the PC and prostate biopsy database from the Turkish Urooncology Association. A total of 1143 patients with Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) with ≥3 lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and who had received a software-guided transperineal/transrectal MRI/transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy with concomitant standard systematic 12-core biopsy were included in this study. csPC detection rates of the TP and TR approaches were compared following Mahalanobis distance matching within propensity score caliper method. The following four variables were selected as covariates for the matching procedure: age, digital rectal examination findings, PSA density, and the index lesion PI-RADS score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The matched sample included 508 TR and 276 TP patients. In both the TP and the TR groups, targeted biopsy was superior to systematic biopsy in detecting csPC (27.5% vs. 24.6%, p < 0.001 and 19.5% vs. 16.3%, p < 0.0001, respectively). Both TPTB and TP systematic biopsy was found to be superior to TRTB and TR systematic biopsy in terms of csPC detection (27.5% vs. 19.5%, p = 0.012 and 24.6% vs. 16.3%, p = 0.006). In patients with an anterior index lesion, an apical index lesion, and a larger prostate, the superiority of TPTB to TRTB was found to be more prominent in terms of csPC detection (37.8% vs. 18.3%, p = 0.044; 34.6% vs. 14.7%, p = 0.002; and 25% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.033, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Targeted biopsy was found to be superior to systematic biopsy in detecting csPC in both the TP and the TR approaches. The TP approach is preferred because of its clear superiority in detecting csPC in targeted biopsy, especially in patients with anterior and apical lesions and with larger prostates.</p>","PeriodicalId":501684,"journal":{"name":"The Prostate","volume":" ","pages":"425-432"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Prostate","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.24288","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/12/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Objective: To compare the clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC)-detecting results of transperineal and transrectal targeted biopsy (TPTB and TRTB, respectively) by performing matching analysis.

Patients and methods: This study has used the PC and prostate biopsy database from the Turkish Urooncology Association. A total of 1143 patients with Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) with ≥3 lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and who had received a software-guided transperineal/transrectal MRI/transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy with concomitant standard systematic 12-core biopsy were included in this study. csPC detection rates of the TP and TR approaches were compared following Mahalanobis distance matching within propensity score caliper method. The following four variables were selected as covariates for the matching procedure: age, digital rectal examination findings, PSA density, and the index lesion PI-RADS score.

Results: The matched sample included 508 TR and 276 TP patients. In both the TP and the TR groups, targeted biopsy was superior to systematic biopsy in detecting csPC (27.5% vs. 24.6%, p < 0.001 and 19.5% vs. 16.3%, p < 0.0001, respectively). Both TPTB and TP systematic biopsy was found to be superior to TRTB and TR systematic biopsy in terms of csPC detection (27.5% vs. 19.5%, p = 0.012 and 24.6% vs. 16.3%, p = 0.006). In patients with an anterior index lesion, an apical index lesion, and a larger prostate, the superiority of TPTB to TRTB was found to be more prominent in terms of csPC detection (37.8% vs. 18.3%, p = 0.044; 34.6% vs. 14.7%, p = 0.002; and 25% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.033, respectively).

Conclusion: Targeted biopsy was found to be superior to systematic biopsy in detecting csPC in both the TP and the TR approaches. The TP approach is preferred because of its clear superiority in detecting csPC in targeted biopsy, especially in patients with anterior and apical lesions and with larger prostates.

倾向评分卡尺法马氏距离匹配经会阴和经直肠前列腺活检的比较:土耳其泌尿肿瘤协会的一项多中心研究。
目的:通过配对分析比较经会阴和经直肠靶向活检(TPTB和TRTB)对临床意义显著的前列腺癌(csPC)的检测结果。患者和方法:本研究使用了来自土耳其泌尿肿瘤协会的PC和前列腺活检数据库。本研究共纳入1143例前列腺影像学报告和数据系统(PI-RADS)患者,多参数磁共振成像(mpMRI)病变≥3个,并接受软件引导的经会阴/经直肠MRI/经直肠超声(TRUS)融合前列腺活检并伴有标准系统12核活检。采用倾向评分卡尺法进行马氏距离匹配,比较TP法和TR法的csPC检出率。选择以下四个变量作为匹配过程的协变量:年龄、直肠指检结果、PSA密度和指数病变PI-RADS评分。结果:匹配样本为TR患者508例,TP患者276例。在TP组和TR组中,靶向活检在检测csPC方面都优于系统活检(27.5% vs. 24.6%)。结论:在TP和TR入路中,靶向活检在检测csPC方面都优于系统活检。TP方法是首选方法,因为它在靶向活检中检测csPC方面具有明显的优势,特别是在有前、根尖病变和前列腺较大的患者中。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书