Validation of new TRUS biopsy techniques for PI-RADS 4 or 5
Purpose Recently, new magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) techniques and imaging features of Prostate Imaging and Report and Data System (PI-RADS) 4 or 5 have been reported. The aim of this study was to validate the outcomes of new TRUS-guided biopsy techniques for cancer...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Sungkyunkwan University School of Medi
2020-12-01
|
| Series: | Precision and Future Medicine |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.pfmjournal.org/upload/pdf/pfm-2020-00114.pdf |
| _version_ | 1819143673523208192 |
|---|---|
| author | Taein An Byung Kwan Park |
| author_facet | Taein An Byung Kwan Park |
| author_sort | Taein An |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Purpose Recently, new magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) techniques and imaging features of Prostate Imaging and Report and Data System (PI-RADS) 4 or 5 have been reported. The aim of this study was to validate the outcomes of new TRUS-guided biopsy techniques for cancer detection in patients with PI-RADS 4 or 5. Methods Between June 2018 and November 2018, 94 men underwent TRUS-guided biopsy after PI-RADS 4 (n=59) or 5 (n=35) was categorized as an index lesion on MRI. For PI-RADS 4 group, target biopsy was performed in 5 and combination biopsy (target and systematic biopsies) was in 54. For PI-RADS 5 group, target biopsy was performed in 19 and combination biopsy was in 16. Target to combination biopsy ratios and significant cancer detection rates (CDRs) were compared between the groups. Significant cancer was defined as a Gleason score ≥ 7 tumor. Standard reference was biopsy examination. Fisher’s exact were used for statistical analysis. Results Target to combination biopsy ratios was 5:54 in the PI-RADS 4 group and 19:16 in the PI-RADS 5 group (P<0.0001). The significant CDR of the target biopsy were 42.4% (25/59) in the PI-RADS 4 group and 82.6% (29/35) in the PI-RADS 5 group (P=0.0002). The significant CDR of combination biopsy was 44.1% (26/59) in the PI-RADS 4 group and 85.7% (30/35) in the PI-RADS 5 group (P<0.0001). Conclusion New TRUS biopsy techniques provides high significant CDR patients with PI-RADS 4 or 5. Therefore, TRUS should be performed prior to fusion or in-bore biopsy to determine if these categories are visible. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-22T12:29:59Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-5da93867e1794ced836047f2852158a2 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2508-7940 2508-7959 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-22T12:29:59Z |
| publishDate | 2020-12-01 |
| publisher | Sungkyunkwan University School of Medi |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Precision and Future Medicine |
| spelling | doaj.art-5da93867e1794ced836047f2852158a22022-12-21T18:25:42ZengSungkyunkwan University School of MediPrecision and Future Medicine2508-79402508-79592020-12-014414114810.23838/pfm.2020.0011486Validation of new TRUS biopsy techniques for PI-RADS 4 or 5Taein An0Byung Kwan Park1 Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, KoreaPurpose Recently, new magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) techniques and imaging features of Prostate Imaging and Report and Data System (PI-RADS) 4 or 5 have been reported. The aim of this study was to validate the outcomes of new TRUS-guided biopsy techniques for cancer detection in patients with PI-RADS 4 or 5. Methods Between June 2018 and November 2018, 94 men underwent TRUS-guided biopsy after PI-RADS 4 (n=59) or 5 (n=35) was categorized as an index lesion on MRI. For PI-RADS 4 group, target biopsy was performed in 5 and combination biopsy (target and systematic biopsies) was in 54. For PI-RADS 5 group, target biopsy was performed in 19 and combination biopsy was in 16. Target to combination biopsy ratios and significant cancer detection rates (CDRs) were compared between the groups. Significant cancer was defined as a Gleason score ≥ 7 tumor. Standard reference was biopsy examination. Fisher’s exact were used for statistical analysis. Results Target to combination biopsy ratios was 5:54 in the PI-RADS 4 group and 19:16 in the PI-RADS 5 group (P<0.0001). The significant CDR of the target biopsy were 42.4% (25/59) in the PI-RADS 4 group and 82.6% (29/35) in the PI-RADS 5 group (P=0.0002). The significant CDR of combination biopsy was 44.1% (26/59) in the PI-RADS 4 group and 85.7% (30/35) in the PI-RADS 5 group (P<0.0001). Conclusion New TRUS biopsy techniques provides high significant CDR patients with PI-RADS 4 or 5. Therefore, TRUS should be performed prior to fusion or in-bore biopsy to determine if these categories are visible.http://www.pfmjournal.org/upload/pdf/pfm-2020-00114.pdfbiopsyprostateultrasonography |
| spellingShingle | Taein An Byung Kwan Park Validation of new TRUS biopsy techniques for PI-RADS 4 or 5 Precision and Future Medicine biopsy prostate ultrasonography |
| title | Validation of new TRUS biopsy techniques for PI-RADS 4 or 5 |
| title_full | Validation of new TRUS biopsy techniques for PI-RADS 4 or 5 |
| title_fullStr | Validation of new TRUS biopsy techniques for PI-RADS 4 or 5 |
| title_full_unstemmed | Validation of new TRUS biopsy techniques for PI-RADS 4 or 5 |
| title_short | Validation of new TRUS biopsy techniques for PI-RADS 4 or 5 |
| title_sort | validation of new trus biopsy techniques for pi rads 4 or 5 |
| topic | biopsy prostate ultrasonography |
| url | http://www.pfmjournal.org/upload/pdf/pfm-2020-00114.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT taeinan validationofnewtrusbiopsytechniquesforpirads4or5 AT byungkwanpark validationofnewtrusbiopsytechniquesforpirads4or5 |