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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2020;16(7):1698-1702.
doi: 10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_1495_20.

Is targeted magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy enough for the detection of prostate cancer in patients with PI-RADS ≥3: Results of a prospective, randomized clinical trial

Affiliations
Free article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Is targeted magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy enough for the detection of prostate cancer in patients with PI-RADS ≥3: Results of a prospective, randomized clinical trial

Jing Zhang et al. J Cancer Res Ther. 2020.
Free article

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate targeted magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound (MRI/TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy versus systematic prostate biopsy and the two approaches combined for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) in our center.

Patients and methods: From September 2018 to June 2020, a total of 161 patients with PI-RADS ≥3 were enrolled in this study. They were randomly to undergo either systematic prostate biopsy (systematic group) or targeted MRI/TRUS fusion prostate biopsy + systematic prostate biopsy (combined group). The clinical data and pathological results of biopsies were analyzed.

Results: The detection rate of PCa by targeted MRI/TRUS fusion prostate biopsy was higher than systematic prostate biopsy (38/81 vs. 33/81) in combinated group, but there was no significantly difference. The PCa detection rate in combinated group was significantly higher than systematic group (47/81 vs. 34/80, P = 0.049). There were 40 patients in combinated group and 22 patients in systematic group diagnosed as csPCa, respectively. The ratio of detected csPCa was much higher in combinated group (P = 0.032). In Gleason score no more than 6, the detected ratio of targeted MRI/TRUS fusion prostate biopsy was significantly lower than systematic biopsies in combinated group (P = 0.044). While, in Gleason score higher than 6, the detected ratios of targeted MRI/TRUS fusion prostate biopsy were all higher than systematic biopsies.

Conclusions: Among patients with PI-RADS ≥ 3, targeted MRI/TRUS fusion prostate biopsy is superior to systematic prostate biopsy in the detection rate of PCa and csPCa, but it still misses some PCa patients, including csPCa. Combining targeted MRI/TRUS fusion prostate biopsy and systematic prostate biopsy can led to more detection of all PCas, especially csPCa.

Keywords: Fusion image; magnetic resonance imaging; prostate biopsy; prostate cancer; transperineal.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types