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 26, Issue 5 (September 2024) 26, 517–521; 10.4103/aja202412

Comparison of systematic and combined biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer

Huang, Jin-Lun1,*; Huang, Da1,*; Chun, Tsun-Tsun2; Yao, Chi2; Zhan, Yong-Le2; Ruan, Xiao-Hao1; Lai, Terence Chun-Ting3; Tsang, Chiu-Fung3; Pang, Karl-Ho2; Ng, Ada Tsui-Lin3; Xu, Dan-Feng1; Ho, Brian Sze-Ho3; Na, Rong2

1Department of Urology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China

2Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

3Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, China

Correspondence: Dr. R Na (yungna@hku.hk) Dr. BSH Ho (brianshho@gmail.com)

Originally published: May 14, 2024 Received: October 7, 2023 Accepted: March 18, 2024

Abstract

Systematic prostate biopsy has limitations, such as overdiagnosis of clinically insignificant prostate cancer and underdiagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy, a promising alternative, might improve diagnostic accuracy. To compare the cancer detection rates of systematic biopsy and combined biopsy (systematic biopsy plus MRI-targeted biopsy) in Asian men, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of men who underwent either systematic biopsy or combined biopsy at two medical centers (Queen Mary Hospital and Tung Wah Hospital, Hong Kong, China) from July 2015 to December 2022. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. The primary and secondary outcomes were prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer. A total of 1391 participants were enrolled. The overall prostate cancer detection rates did not significantly differ between the two groups (36.3% vs 36.6%, odds ratio [OR] = 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81–1.26, P = 0.92). However, combined biopsy showed a significant advantage in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥ 3+4) in patients with a total serum prostate-specific antigen (tPSA) concentration of 2–10 ng ml−1 (systematic vs combined: 11.9% vs 17.5%, OR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.08–2.31, P = 0.02). Specifically, in the transperineal biopsy subgroup, combined biopsy significantly outperformed systematic biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (systematic vs combined: 12.6% vs 24.0%, OR = 2.19, 95% CI: 1.21–3.97, P = 0.01). These findings suggest that in patients with a tPSA concentration of 2–10 ng ml−1, MRI-targeted biopsy may be of greater predictive value than systematic biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Keywords: clinically significant prostate cancer; combined biopsy; prostate cancer; systematic biopsy; transperineal biopsy

Full Text | PDF |

 
Browse:  220
 
Asian Journal of Andrology CN 31-1795/R ISSN 1008-682X  Copyright © 2023  Shanghai Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Sciences.  All rights reserved.