Cancer detection rates and inter-examiner variability of MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy and systematic transrectal biopsy
Open Access
- 17 September 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Palacky University Olomouc in Biomedical Papers
- Vol. 164 (3) , 314-319
Abstract
Software-based MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy depends on the coordination of several steps, and inter-examiner differences could influence the results. The aim of this bicentric prospective study was to compare the detection rates of MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy (TG) and systematic biopsy (SB), and the detection rates of examiners with different levels of previous experience in prostate biopsy. A total of 419 patients underwent MRI based on a suspicion of prostate cancer with elevated PSA levels. MRI was positive in 395 patients (221 in the first biopsy group [FB] and 174 in the repeated biopsy group [RB]). A subsequent TG, followed by a SB, was performed on these patients by four different examiners. In the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, a significant difference was found for TG+SB against SB in the RB group (35.1% vs. 25.3%, P=0.047). In the detection of clinically insignificant prostate cancer, the SB had a significantly higher detection rate than TG in both subgroups (FB: 11.9% vs. 4.7%, P=0.008; RB: 13.8% vs. 6.9%, P=0.034). A significant difference was found between the four examiners in the FB for TG (P=0.028), SB (P=0.036), and TG+SB (P=0.017). MRI/TRUS TG in combination with SB had significantly higher detection rates than SB in the RB group only. Differences in detection rates between examiners were dependent on the level of previous experience with TRUS guided biopsy.Keywords
This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit:
- A Randomized Controlled Trial To Assess and Compare the Outcomes of Two-core Prostate Biopsy Guided by Fused Magnetic Resonance and Transrectal Ultrasound Images and Traditional 12-core Systematic BiopsyEuropean Urology, 2016
- Prostate cancer detection on transrectal ultrasonography‐guided random biopsy despite negative real‐time magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion‐guided targeted biopsy: reasons for targeted biopsy failureBJU International, 2015
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging–targeted Biopsy May Enhance the Diagnostic Accuracy of Significant Prostate Cancer Detection Compared to Standard Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysisEuropean Urology, 2015
- Comparison of MR/Ultrasound Fusion–Guided Biopsy With Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy for the Diagnosis of Prostate CancerJAMA, 2015
- A Prospective, Blinded Comparison of Magnetic Resonance (MR) Imaging–Ultrasound Fusion and Visual Estimation in the Performance of MR-targeted Prostate Biopsy: The PROFUS TrialEuropean Urology, 2014
- Comparison of image-guided targeted biopsies versus systematic randomized biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic literature review of well-designed studiesWorld Journal of Urology, 2014
- Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Multiparametric MR-targeted Biopsy with Cognitive and Transrectal US–MR Fusion Guidance versus Systematic Biopsy—Prospective Multicenter StudyRadiology, 2013
- Inter-Reader Agreement of Multi-Parametric MR Imaging for the Detection of Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of a Scoring SystemRöFo - Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Röntgenstrahlen und der bildgebenden Verfahren, 2012
- ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012European Radiology, 2012
- Pathologic and Clinical Findings to Predict Tumor Extent of Nonpalpable (Stage T1 c) Prostate CancerJAMA, 1994