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, Venkat Eguru, Sohail Moosa, 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, Venkat Eguru, Sohail Moosa, 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}
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.