{"title":"微超声与mpMRI检测临床意义前列腺癌的比较","authors":"G. Tan, B. Wodlinger, C. Pavlovich, L. Klotz","doi":"10.48083/dhnc9428","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives To compare the performance of micro-ultrasound (mUS) with multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer. Materials and Methods Retrospective data from consecutive patients with any indication for prostate biopsy in 2 academic institutions were included. The operator, blinded to mpMRI, would first scan the prostate and annotate any mUS lesions. All mUS lesions were biopsied. Any mpMRI lesions that did not correspond to mUS lesion upon unblinding were additionally biopsied. Grade group (GG) ≥ 2 was considered clinically significant cancer. The Jeffreys interval method was used to compare performance of mUS with mpMRI with the non-inferiority limit set at −5%. Results Imaging and biopsy were performed in 82 patients with 153 lesions. mUS had similar sensitivity to mpMRI (per-lesion analysis: 78.4% versus 72.5%), but lower specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under the curve. Micro-ultrasound found GG ≥ 2 in 13% of cases missed by mpMRI, while mpMRI found GG ≥ 2 in 11% of cases missed by mUS. The difference 0.020 (95% CI −0.070 to 0.110) was not statistically significant (P = 0.33). Conclusion The sensitivity of mUS in detecting GG ≥ 2 disease was similar to that of mpMRI, but the specificity was lower. Further evaluation with a larger sample size and experienced operators is warranted.","PeriodicalId":21961,"journal":{"name":"Société Internationale d’Urologie Journal","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Micro-Ultrasound to mpMRI in Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer\",\"authors\":\"G. Tan, B. Wodlinger, C. Pavlovich, L. Klotz\",\"doi\":\"10.48083/dhnc9428\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objectives To compare the performance of micro-ultrasound (mUS) with multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer. Materials and Methods Retrospective data from consecutive patients with any indication for prostate biopsy in 2 academic institutions were included. The operator, blinded to mpMRI, would first scan the prostate and annotate any mUS lesions. All mUS lesions were biopsied. Any mpMRI lesions that did not correspond to mUS lesion upon unblinding were additionally biopsied. Grade group (GG) ≥ 2 was considered clinically significant cancer. The Jeffreys interval method was used to compare performance of mUS with mpMRI with the non-inferiority limit set at −5%. Results Imaging and biopsy were performed in 82 patients with 153 lesions. mUS had similar sensitivity to mpMRI (per-lesion analysis: 78.4% versus 72.5%), but lower specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under the curve. Micro-ultrasound found GG ≥ 2 in 13% of cases missed by mpMRI, while mpMRI found GG ≥ 2 in 11% of cases missed by mUS. The difference 0.020 (95% CI −0.070 to 0.110) was not statistically significant (P = 0.33). Conclusion The sensitivity of mUS in detecting GG ≥ 2 disease was similar to that of mpMRI, but the specificity was lower. Further evaluation with a larger sample size and experienced operators is warranted.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21961,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Société Internationale d’Urologie Journal\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Société Internationale d’Urologie Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.48083/dhnc9428\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Société Internationale d’Urologie Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.48083/dhnc9428","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的比较微超声(mUS)与多参数磁共振成像(mpMRI)在诊断具有临床意义的前列腺癌中的应用价值。材料和方法回顾性分析2个学术机构连续有前列腺活检指征患者的资料。操作人员对mpMRI不知情,首先扫描前列腺并注释任何mUS病变。所有mUS病变均行活检。在解盲时,任何mpMRI病变不对应于mUS病变的都进行了额外的活检。分级组(GG)≥2级为临床显著癌。采用Jeffreys区间法,在非劣效限制设置为- 5%的情况下,比较mUS与mpMRI的表现。结果82例患者153个病灶行影像学检查和活检。mUS与mpMRI具有相似的敏感性(每病灶分析:78.4%对72.5%),但特异性、阳性预测值、阴性预测值和曲线下面积较低。微超发现GG≥2者占mpMRI漏诊病例的13%,mpMRI发现GG≥2者占mUS漏诊病例的11%。差异0.020 (95% CI - 0.070 ~ 0.110)无统计学意义(P = 0.33)。结论mUS检测GG≥2病变的敏感性与mpMRI相似,但特异性较低。进一步的评估与更大的样本量和经验丰富的操作员是必要的。
Comparing Micro-Ultrasound to mpMRI in Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer
Objectives To compare the performance of micro-ultrasound (mUS) with multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer. Materials and Methods Retrospective data from consecutive patients with any indication for prostate biopsy in 2 academic institutions were included. The operator, blinded to mpMRI, would first scan the prostate and annotate any mUS lesions. All mUS lesions were biopsied. Any mpMRI lesions that did not correspond to mUS lesion upon unblinding were additionally biopsied. Grade group (GG) ≥ 2 was considered clinically significant cancer. The Jeffreys interval method was used to compare performance of mUS with mpMRI with the non-inferiority limit set at −5%. Results Imaging and biopsy were performed in 82 patients with 153 lesions. mUS had similar sensitivity to mpMRI (per-lesion analysis: 78.4% versus 72.5%), but lower specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under the curve. Micro-ultrasound found GG ≥ 2 in 13% of cases missed by mpMRI, while mpMRI found GG ≥ 2 in 11% of cases missed by mUS. The difference 0.020 (95% CI −0.070 to 0.110) was not statistically significant (P = 0.33). Conclusion The sensitivity of mUS in detecting GG ≥ 2 disease was similar to that of mpMRI, but the specificity was lower. Further evaluation with a larger sample size and experienced operators is warranted.