Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Apr 3:2020:4626781.
doi: 10.1155/2020/4626781. eCollection 2020.

Cancer Detection Rates of Systematic and Targeted Prostate Biopsies after Biparametric MRI

Maudy C W Gayet  1   2 , Anouk A M A van der Aa  1   2 , Harrie P Beerlage  2   3 , Bart Ph Schrier  1 , Maaike Gielens  4 , Roel Heesakkers  4 , Gerrit J Jager  4 , Peter F A Mulders  5 , Hessel Wijkstra  2   3
Affiliations

Cancer Detection Rates of Systematic and Targeted Prostate Biopsies after Biparametric MRI

Maudy C W Gayet et al. Prostate Cancer. .

Abstract

Objective: To compare prostate cancer detection rates (CDRs) and pathology results with targeted prostate biopsy (TB) and systematic prostate biopsy (SB) in biopsy-naive men.

Methods: An in-patient control study of 82 men undergoing SB and subsequent TB in case of positive prostate MRI between 2015 and 2017 in the Jeroen Bosch Hospital, the Netherlands.

Results: Prostate cancer (PCa) was detected in 54.9% with 70.7% agreement between TB and SB. Significant PCa (Gleason score ≥7) was detected in 24.4%. The CDR with TB and SB was 35.4% and 48.8%, respectively (p=0.052). The CDR of significant prostate cancer with TB and SB was both 20.7%. Clinically significant pathology upgrading occurred in 7.3% by adding TB to SB and 22.0% by adding SB to TB.

Conclusions: There is no statistically significant difference between CDRs of SB and TB. Both SB and TB miss significant PCas. Moreover, pathology upgrading occurred more often by adding SB to TB than vice versa. This indicates that the omission of SB in this study population might not be justified.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Shinohara K., Wheeler T. M., Scardino P. T. The appearance of prostate cancer on transrectal ultrasonography: correlation of imaging and pathological examinations. Journal of Urology. 1989;142(1):76–82. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)38666-4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Roehl K. A., Antenor J. A. V., Catalona W. J. Serial biopsy results in prostate cancer screening study. The Journal of Urology. 2002;167(6):2435–2439. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(05)64999-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Haider M. A., van der Kwast T. H., Tanguay J., et al. Combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI for localization of prostate cancer. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2007;189(2):323–328. doi: 10.2214/ajr.07.2211. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kitajima K., Kaji Y., Fukabori Y., Yoshida K.-I., Suganuma N., Sugimura K. Prostate cancer detection with 3 T MRI: comparison of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in combination with T2-weighted imaging. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2010;31(3):625–631. doi: 10.1002/jmri.22075. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Turkbey B., Mani H., Shah V., et al. Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. Journal of Urology. 2011;186(5):1818–1824. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.07.013. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources