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
- PMID: 39314912
- PMCID: PMC11417145
- DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2024.08.013
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
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.
© 2024 The Author(s).
Similar articles
-
Transperineal or Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Detection.Eur Urol Focus. 2024 Sep;10(5):805-811. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2024.03.003. Epub 2024 Mar 19. Eur Urol Focus. 2024. PMID: 38508895
-
Transrectal versus transperineal prostate fusion biopsy: a pair-matched analysis to evaluate accuracy and complications.World J Urol. 2024 Sep 25;42(1):535. doi: 10.1007/s00345-024-05245-1. World J Urol. 2024. PMID: 39320521 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison of diagnostic efficacy between transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy: A propensity score-matched study.Asian J Androl. 2019 Nov-Dec;21(6):612-617. doi: 10.4103/aja.aja_16_19. Asian J Androl. 2019. PMID: 31006712 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-stratified Clinical Pathways and Systematic Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Biopsy Pathway for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Eur Urol Oncol. 2019 Nov;2(6):605-616. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2019.05.004. Epub 2019 Jun 14. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019. PMID: 31204311 Free PMC article.
-
Elastic Versus Rigid Image Registration in Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Eur Urol Focus. 2018 Mar;4(2):219-227. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2016.07.003. Epub 2016 Jul 29. Eur Urol Focus. 2018. PMID: 28753777
Cited by
-
ProCUSNet: Prostate Cancer Detection on B-mode Transrectal Ultrasound Using Artificial Intelligence for Targeting During Prostate Biopsies.Eur Urol Oncol. 2025 Apr;8(2):477-485. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2024.12.012. Epub 2025 Jan 28. Eur Urol Oncol. 2025. PMID: 39880746
-
Machine learning driven diagnostic pathway for clinically significant prostate cancer: the role of micro-ultrasound.World J Urol. 2025 Aug 18;43(1):502. doi: 10.1007/s00345-025-05797-w. World J Urol. 2025. PMID: 40824495
References
-
- 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.
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials
Miscellaneous