在诊断和治疗具有临床意义的前列腺癌时,联合系统活检是否比融合靶向活检更有效?

0 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Alice Thompson, Venkat Eguru, Sohail Moosa, Yeung Ng
{"title":"在诊断和治疗具有临床意义的前列腺癌时,联合系统活检是否比融合靶向活检更有效?","authors":"Alice Thompson,&nbsp;Venkat Eguru,&nbsp;Sohail Moosa,&nbsp;Yeung Ng","doi":"10.5152/tud.2023.22221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy clearly detects more clinically significant prostate cancer than systematic biopsy. Whether concomitant systematic biopsy adds to targeted biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer remains uncertain. The primary outcome measure of this study was to ascertain the percentage of clinically significant prostate cancer on systematic biopsy missed by targeted biopsy. Furthermore, we sought to determine whether systematic biopsy results influenced the clinical management of patients.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This prospective observational study included all men undergoing Fusion targeted biopsy in our Health Board. All men had PI-RADS scores of 3-5 on magnetic resonance imaging. Histology from targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy was reviewed to determine any additional benefit of performing systematic biopsy. Clinical outcomes were also reviewed. Clinically significant prostate cancer was defined by (i) International Society of Urological Pathology ≥ 2 and (ii) UCL criteria of any primary Gleason 4 or core length ≥ 6 mm.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 104 men were included in the study of whom 18 patients were biopsy naïve, 65 had at least 1 previous negative biopsy, and 20 had previous biopsies that showed clinically insignificant cancer. The percentage of clinically significant prostate cancer missed on targeted biopsy was between 9.1% and 11.1%. Moreover, 17.1% of patients with clinically significant prostate cancer would not have proceeded to radical treatment if the systematic biopsy had not been performed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our data support a growing field of evidence that although magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy is more sensitive than systematic biopsy at detecting clinically significant prostate cancer, systematic biopsy adds to the number of patients diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer in those already undergoing prostate biopsy.</p>","PeriodicalId":101337,"journal":{"name":"Urology research & practice","volume":"49 3","pages":"169-177"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10346108/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do Concomitant Systematic Biopsies Add to Fusion Targeted Biopsies in the Diagnosis and Management of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer?\",\"authors\":\"Alice Thompson,&nbsp;Venkat Eguru,&nbsp;Sohail Moosa,&nbsp;Yeung Ng\",\"doi\":\"10.5152/tud.2023.22221\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy clearly detects more clinically significant prostate cancer than systematic biopsy. Whether concomitant systematic biopsy adds to targeted biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer remains uncertain. The primary outcome measure of this study was to ascertain the percentage of clinically significant prostate cancer on systematic biopsy missed by targeted biopsy. Furthermore, we sought to determine whether systematic biopsy results influenced the clinical management of patients.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This prospective observational study included all men undergoing Fusion targeted biopsy in our Health Board. All men had PI-RADS scores of 3-5 on magnetic resonance imaging. Histology from targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy was reviewed to determine any additional benefit of performing systematic biopsy. Clinical outcomes were also reviewed. Clinically significant prostate cancer was defined by (i) International Society of Urological Pathology ≥ 2 and (ii) UCL criteria of any primary Gleason 4 or core length ≥ 6 mm.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 104 men were included in the study of whom 18 patients were biopsy naïve, 65 had at least 1 previous negative biopsy, and 20 had previous biopsies that showed clinically insignificant cancer. The percentage of clinically significant prostate cancer missed on targeted biopsy was between 9.1% and 11.1%. Moreover, 17.1% of patients with clinically significant prostate cancer would not have proceeded to radical treatment if the systematic biopsy had not been performed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our data support a growing field of evidence that although magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy is more sensitive than systematic biopsy at detecting clinically significant prostate cancer, systematic biopsy adds to the number of patients diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer in those already undergoing prostate biopsy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101337,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urology research & practice\",\"volume\":\"49 3\",\"pages\":\"169-177\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10346108/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urology research & practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2023.22221\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urology research & practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2023.22221","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:磁共振成像靶向活检比系统活检更清楚地检测临床意义更显著的前列腺癌症。同时进行的系统活组织检查是否增加了靶向活组织检查,以检测具有临床意义的前列腺癌症仍不确定。本研究的主要结果指标是确定靶向活检错过系统活检的具有临床意义的前列腺癌症的百分比。此外,我们试图确定系统活检结果是否影响患者的临床管理。材料和方法:这项前瞻性观察性研究包括我们健康委员会中所有接受融合靶向活检的男性。所有男性的磁共振成像PI-RADS评分均为3-5分。对靶向活检和系统活检的组织学进行审查,以确定进行系统活检的任何额外益处。还对临床结果进行了回顾。具有临床意义的前列腺癌症由(i)国际泌尿病理学学会≥2和(ii)任何原发性Gleason 4或核心长度≥6mm的UCL标准定义。临床显著性前列腺癌癌症靶向活检失败的百分比在9.1%至11.1%之间。此外,如果不进行系统活检,17.1%的临床显著性癌症患者将不会进行彻底治疗。结论:我们的数据支持越来越多的证据,即尽管磁共振成像靶向活检在检测临床显著的前列腺癌症方面比系统活检更敏感,但系统活检增加了已经接受前列腺活检的患者中诊断为临床显著的癌症的患者数量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Do Concomitant Systematic Biopsies Add to Fusion Targeted Biopsies in the Diagnosis and Management of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer?

Do Concomitant Systematic Biopsies Add to Fusion Targeted Biopsies in the Diagnosis and Management of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer?

Do Concomitant Systematic Biopsies Add to Fusion Targeted Biopsies in the Diagnosis and Management of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer?

Do Concomitant Systematic Biopsies Add to Fusion Targeted Biopsies in the Diagnosis and Management of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer?

Objective: Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy clearly detects more clinically significant prostate cancer than systematic biopsy. Whether concomitant systematic biopsy adds to targeted biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer remains uncertain. The primary outcome measure of this study was to ascertain the percentage of clinically significant prostate cancer on systematic biopsy missed by targeted biopsy. Furthermore, we sought to determine whether systematic biopsy results influenced the clinical management of patients.

Materials and methods: This prospective observational study included all men undergoing Fusion targeted biopsy in our Health Board. All men had PI-RADS scores of 3-5 on magnetic resonance imaging. Histology from targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy was reviewed to determine any additional benefit of performing systematic biopsy. Clinical outcomes were also reviewed. Clinically significant prostate cancer was defined by (i) International Society of Urological Pathology ≥ 2 and (ii) UCL criteria of any primary Gleason 4 or core length ≥ 6 mm.

Results: A total of 104 men were included in the study of whom 18 patients were biopsy naïve, 65 had at least 1 previous negative biopsy, and 20 had previous biopsies that showed clinically insignificant cancer. The percentage of clinically significant prostate cancer missed on targeted biopsy was between 9.1% and 11.1%. Moreover, 17.1% of patients with clinically significant prostate cancer would not have proceeded to radical treatment if the systematic biopsy had not been performed.

Conclusion: Our data support a growing field of evidence that although magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy is more sensitive than systematic biopsy at detecting clinically significant prostate cancer, systematic biopsy adds to the number of patients diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancer in those already undergoing prostate biopsy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
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