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
. 2024 Sep 12:69:7-12.
doi: 10.1016/j.euros.2024.08.013. eCollection 2024 Nov.

A Propensity Score-matched Comparison of Micro-ultrasound-guided Transrectal and Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion-guided Transperineal Prostate Biopsies for Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer

Affiliations

A Propensity Score-matched Comparison of Micro-ultrasound-guided Transrectal and Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion-guided Transperineal Prostate Biopsies for Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer

Andrea Piccolini et al. Eur Urol Open Sci. .

Abstract

Background and objective: High-resolution micro-ultrasound (microUS) is an advanced imaging tool. Our objective was to determine whether systematic microUS use for transrectal biopsy (TRBx) improves the detection rate for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in comparison to transperineal biopsy (TPBx) performed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/conventional transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion software.

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data for men who underwent prostate biopsies, including those on active surveillance (AS). TRBx was performed under microUS guidance, while MRI/TRUS fusion was consistently used to guide TPBx. Patients were matched according to propensity score matching (PSM). The primary endpoint was comparison of the csPCa detection rate with the two approaches. Secondary endpoints included predictors of csPCa (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2, assessed via multivariable logistic regression) and complication rates.

Key findings and limitations: Overall, 1423 patients were enrolled. After applying PSM we identified an analytical cohort of 1094 men, 582 in the TRBx group and 512 in the TPBx group. There was no significant difference in the csPCa detection rate between the TRBx (45%) and TPBx (51%) groups (p = 0.07). Complications occurred in nine of 1094 patients (1%). On adjusted multivariable analysis, TPBx had a similar csPCa detection rate to TRBx (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.26;p = 0.09). Predictors of csPCa detection were a positive family history (aOR 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-2.35; p = 0.002); age (aOR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06; p < 0.001); positive digital rectal examination (aOR 2.35, 95% CI 1.70-3.25; p < 0.001); prostate-specific antigen density ≥0.15 ng/ml/cm3 (aOR 3.23, 95% CI 2.47-4.23; p < 0.001); and a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score ≥3 (aOR 2.46; 95% CI 1.83-3.32; p < 0.001). Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study, the risk of underestimating the complication rate, and the heterogeneity of biopsy indications.

Conclusions and clinical implications: TRBx using microUS alone showed a comparable csPCa detection rate to TPBx guided by MRI/TRUS fusion software. Given the better visualization and real-time detection of suspicious zones with microUS, the potential for improvement in the csPCa detection rate with greater integration of microUS in the TPBx setting warrants further investigation.

Patient summary: We compared the ability of two different prostate biopsy approaches to detect clinically significant prostate cancer. We found that transrectal biopsy guided by micro-ultrasound had similar detection rates to transperineal biopsy guided by a combination of magnetic resonance imaging and conventional ultrasound. More research is needed to confirm the potential of micro-ultrasound for transperineal biopsy.

Keywords: Diagnosis, Micro-ultrasound; Magnetic resonance imaging; Multiparametric; Prostate biopsy; Transrectal ultrasound.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Mottet N, Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Arnhem, The Netherlands: European Association of Urology; 2023.
    1. Eastham J.A., Boorjian S.A., Kirkby E. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO guideline. J Urol. 2022;208:505–507. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000002854. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ippoliti S., Fletcher P., Orecchia L., Miano R., Kastner C., Barrett T. Optimal biopsy approach for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Br J Radiol. 2022;95 doi: 10.1259/bjr.20210413. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Drost F.J.H., Osses D.F., Nieboer D., et al. Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;2019 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kasivisvanathan V., Stabile A., Neves J.B., et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy versus systematic biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2019;76:284–303. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.04.043. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources