Home  |   Archive  |   Online Submission  |   News & Events  |   Subscribe  |   APFA  |   Society  |   Contact Us  |   中文版
Search   
 
Journal

-Ahead of print
-Authors' Accepted
    Manuscripts
new!
-Current Issue
-Archive
-Acknowledgments
-Special Issues
-Browse by Category

Manuscript Submission

-Online Submission
-Online Review
-Instruction for Authors
-Instruction for Reviewers
-English Corner new!

About AJA

-About AJA
-Editorial Board
-Contact Us
-News

Resources & Services

-Advertisement
-Subscription
-Email alert
-Proceedings
-Reprints

Download area

-Copyright licence
-EndNote style file
-Manuscript word template
-Guidance for AJA figures
    preparation (in English)

-Guidance for AJA figures
    preparation (in Chinese)

-Proof-reading for the
    authors

-AJA Club (in English)
-AJA Club (in Chinese)

 
Abstract

Volume 25, Issue 1 (January 2023) 25, 43–49; 10.4103/aja2021128

Can we omit systematic biopsies in patients undergoing MRI fusion-targeted prostate biopsies?

Jeffrey J Leow1,2, Soon Hock Koh1,2, Marcus WL Chow1,2, Wayren Loke1, Rolando Salada1, Seok Kwan Hong1,2, Yuyi Yeow1,2, Chau Hung Lee2,3, Cher Heng Tan2,3, Teck Wei Tan1,2

1 Department of Urology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore 308433, Singapore
2 Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 308232, Singapore
3 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore 308433, Singapore

Correspondence: Dr. TW Tan (teckwei.tan@gmail.com)

22-Apr-2022

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted prostate biopsy is the recommended investigation in men with suspicious lesion(s) on MRI. The role of concurrent systematic in addition to targeted biopsies is currently unclear. Using our prospectively maintained database, we identified men with at least one Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) ≥3 lesion who underwent targeted and/or systematic biopsies from May 2016 to May 2020. Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined as any Gleason grade group ≥2 cancer. Of 545 patients who underwent MRI fusion-targeted biopsy, 222 (40.7%) were biopsy naïve, 247 (45.3%) had previous prostate biopsy(s), and 76 (13.9%) had known prostate cancer undergoing active surveillance. Prostate cancer was more commonly found in biopsy-naïve men (63.5%) and those on active surveillance (68.4%) compared to those who had previous biopsies (35.2%; both P < 0.001). Systematic biopsies provided an incremental 10.4% detection of csPCa among biopsy-naïve patients, versus an incremental 2.4% among those who had prior negative biopsies. Multivariable regression found age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.03, P = 0.03), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density ≥0.15 ng ml−2 (OR = 3.24, P < 0.001), prostate health index (PHI) ≥35 (OR = 2.43, P = 0.006), higher PI-RADS score (vs PI-RADS 3; OR = 4.59 for PI-RADS 4, and OR = 9.91 for PI-RADS 5; both P < 0.001) and target lesion volume-to-prostate volume ratio ≥0.10 (OR = 5.26, P = 0.013) were significantly associated with csPCa detection on targeted biopsy. In conclusion, for men undergoing MRI fusion-targeted prostate biopsies, systematic biopsies should not be omitted given its incremental value to targeted biopsies alone. The factors such as PSA density ≥0.15 ng ml−2, PHI ≥35, higher PI-RADS score, and target lesion volume-to-prostate volume ratio ≥0.10 can help identify men at higher risk of csPCa.

Keywords: prostate biopsy; prostate cancer; prostate health index; prostate-specific antigen; software fusion; Uronav

Full Text | PDF |

 
Browse:  1073
 
Asian Journal of Andrology CN 31-1795/R ISSN 1008-682X  Copyright © 2023  Shanghai Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Sciences.  All rights reserved.