Sistematik ve kognitif hedefe yönelik biyopsi: klinik olarak anlamlı prostat kanseri ile ilgili parametrelerinin değerlendirilmesi ve tespit oranlarının karşılaştırılması

Year 2022, Volume: 17 Issue: 3, 187 - 195, 27.10.2022

Cevper Ersöz , Abdullah İlktaç , Senad Kalkan , Yunus Kayalı , Habib Akbulut , Hüseyin Toprak , Bayram Doğan

https://doi.org/10.33719/yud.2022;17-3-1143471

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, kognitif hedefe yönelik biyopsi (KHB) ve sistematik biyopsinin (SB) klinik anlamlı prostat kanseri (kaPKa) tespit oranlarını karşılaştırmak ve kaPKa tespit oranlarını etkileyen faktörleri ortaya çıkarmaktır.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: 2016-2019 yılları arasında lokalize prostat kanseri tanısı alan hastalar retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. KHB ve SB yapılan hastalar kaydedildi. İndeks lezyondan alınan KHB kor sayısı, yaş, prostat spesifik antijen (PSA) seviyesi, gleason skoru, ISUP (International Society of Urological Pathology) derecesi, PIRADS (Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System) skoru, indeks lezyonun büyüklüğü ve parmakla rektal muayene (PRM) bulguları kaydedildi. Ayrıca lezyonun magnetik rezonans görüntüleme (MRG)’ deki lokalizasyonu ile PRM ile tespit edilen nodülün lokalizasyonu arasında bir uyum olup olmadığı da araştırıldı.
Bulgular: Seksen hasta çalışmaya dahil edildi. SB’li 55 (%68.7) hastada kaPKa saptanırken, tek başına KHB ile 35 (%43.7) hastada kaPKa saptandı (p<0.01). SB ile 2 kaPKa hastası atlanmasına karşın KHB ile kaPKa hastaların % 35’ine tanı konulamadı. SB ve KHB’de kaPKa tespit oranları, PRM ve mpMRG arasında bir uyum olan hastalarda anlamlı olarak daha yüksekti (sırasıyla p= 0.012 ve p<0.01). KHB’de kaPKa saptanan hastalarda ortalama yaş, prostat hacmi, PSA, lezyon çapı, kor sayısı ve (PGVRS) skoru açısından anlamlı farklılıklar saptandı ( sırasıyla p=0.005, p=0.02, p=0.005, p=0.003, p=0.017 ve p=0.002).
Sonuç: SB, kaPKa tanısında önemini korumaktadır. Daha büyük lezyonları olan hastalarda KHB tercih edilebilir.

Keywords

Prostat kanseri , prostat biyopsisi , manyetik rezonans görüntüleme , hedefe yönelik biyopsi

Systematic versus cognitive targeted biopsy: evaluation of parameters related to clinically significant prostate cancer and comparison of detection rates

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to compare the clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection rates of cognitive targeted biopsy (CTB) and systematic biopsy (SB) and to reveal the factors affecting csPCa detection rates.
Material and Methods: Patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2016-2019 were evaluated retrospectively. Patients who underwent SB and concomitant CTB were recorded. The number of cores taken from the index lesion in CTB, age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, Gleason score, International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade, Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System (PIRADS) score, the diameter of index lesion, and digital rectal examination (DRE) findings was recorded. We also studied whether there was a concordance between the localization of the lesion on MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) and the localization of the nodule detected on DRE.
Results: Eighty patients were included in the study. csPCa was detected in 55 (68.7%) patients with SB, whereas CTB alone detected csPCa in 35 (43.7%) patients (p<0,01). SB missed 2 patients with csPCa, but 35% of the men with csPCa would be missed by CTB. Detection rates of csPCa in SB and CTB were significantly higher in patients with a concordance between DRE and mpMRI (p= 0.012 and p<0.01, respectively). In patients who had csPCa in CTB, significant differences were detected in the mean age, prostate volume, PSA, lesion diameter, number of cores, and PIRADS score (p=0.005, p=0.02, p=0.005, p=0.003, p=0.017, and p=0.002, respectively)
Conclusion: SB maintains its importance in the diagnosis of csPCa. CTB can be preferred in patients with larger lesions.

Keywords

Prostate cancer , prostate biopsy , magnetic resonance imaging , targeted biopsy

References

• Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: Sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015; 136:359-86. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.29210.
• Cremers RGHM, Karim-Kos HE, Houterman S, et al. Prostate cancer: trends in incidence, survival and mortality in the Netherlands, 1989-2006. Eur J Cancer. 2010; 46:2077–87. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.03.040.
• Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2021; 79:243–62. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042.
• Heijmink SWTPJ, van Moerkerk H, Kiemeney LALM, et al. A comparison of the diagnostic performance of systematic versus ultrasound-guided biopsies of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol. 2006; 16:927–38. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-005-0035-y.
• Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): A paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017; 389:815–22. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1.
• Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018; 378:1767–77. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993.
• Moore CM, Robertson NL, Arsanious N, et al. Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: A systematic review. Eur Urol. 2013; 63:125–40. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.06.004.
• Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016; 69:16–40. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052.
• Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015; 68:438–50. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.037.
• Puech P, Rouvière O, Renard-Penna R, et al. Prostate cancer diagnosis: Multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy--prospective multicenter study. Radiology. 2013; 268:461–9. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13121501.
• Bratan F, Niaf E, Melodelima C, et al. Influence of imaging and histological factors on prostate cancer detection and localisation on multiparametric MRI: A prospective study. Eur Radiol. 2013; 23:2019–29. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-013-2795-0.
• Borofsky S, George AK, Gaur S, et al. What are we missing? False-negative cancers at multiparametric MR imaging of the prostate. Radiology. 2018; 286:186–95. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017152877.
• Verma S, Choyke PL, Eberhardt SC, et al. The current state of MR imaging-targeted biopsy techniques for detection of prostate cancer. Radiology. 2017; 285:343–56. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017161684.
• Overduin CG, Fütterer JJ, Barentsz JO. MRI-guided biopsy for prostate cancer detection: a systematic review of current clinical results. Curr Urol Rep. 2013; 14:209–13. DOI: 10.1007/s11934-013-0323-z.
• Puech P, Ouzzane A, Gaillard V, et al. Multiparametric MRI-targeted TRUS prostate biopsies using visual registration. Biomed Res Int. 2014; 2014:819360. DOI: 10.1155/2014/819360.
• Brown AM, Elbuluk O, Mertan F, et al. Recent advances in image-guided targeted prostate biopsy. Abdom Imaging. 2015; 40:1788–99. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-015-0353-8.
• Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012; 22:746–57. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y.
• Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol. 2011; 59:477–94. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.12.009.
• Kline, R.B., (2011), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling, 3rd.Edition, NY: Guilford Press.
• Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, Hooft L, et al. Comparing three different techniques for magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsies: A systematic review of in-bore versus magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion versus cognitive registration. Is there a preferred technique? Eur Urol. 2017; 71:517–31. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.07.041.
• Kasivisvanathan V, Stabile A, Neves JB, 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.
• John S, Cooper S, Breau RH, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging - Transrectal ultrasound-guided cognitive fusion biopsy of the prostate: Clinically significant cancer detection rates stratified by the Prostate Imaging and Data Reporting System version 2 assessment category. Can Urol Assoc J. 2018; 12:401–6. DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.5254.
• von Below C, Wassberg C, Norberg M, et al. Additional value of magnetic resonance-targeted biopsies to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Scand J Urol. 2017; 51:107–13. DOI: 10.1080/21681805.2017.1281346.
• Gosselaar C, Roobol MJ, Roemeling S, et al. The role of the digital rectal examination in subsequent screening visits in the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer (ERSPC), Rotterdam. Eur Urol. 2008; 54:581–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.03.104.
• Omri N, Alex S, Jacob B, et al. The additive value of mpMRI on prostate cancer detection: Comparison between patients with and without a suspicious digital rectal examination (DRE). Urol Oncol. 2021; 39:728.e7-728.e11. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.12.029.
• Chen J, Yi X-L, Jiang L-X, Wang R, Zhao J-G, Li Y-H, et al. 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging improves the prostate cancer detection rate in transrectral ultrasound-guided biopsy. Exp Ther Med. 2015; 9:207–12. DOI: 10.3892/etm.2014.2061.
• Hofbauer SL, Maxeiner A, Kittner B, et al. Validation of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for the detection of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2018; 200:767–73. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.05.003.
• Özden E, Akpınar Ç, İbiş A, et al. Effect of lesion diameter and prostate volume on prostate cancer detection rate of magnetic resonance imaging: Transrectal-ultrasonography-guided fusion biopsies using cognitive targeting. Turkish J Urol. 2021; 47:22–9. DOI: 10.5152/tud.2020.20238.
• Sonmez G, Demirtas T, Tombul ST, et al. What is the ideal number of biopsy cores per lesion in targeted prostate biopsy? Prostate Int. 2020; 8:112–5. DOI: 10.1016/j.prnil.2020.03.004.
• Leyh-Bannurah S-R, Kachanov M, Beyersdorff D, et al. Minimum magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy cores needed for prostate cancer detection: Multivariable retrospective, lesion based analyses of patients treated with radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2020; 203:299–303. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000527.
• Stabile A, Dell’Oglio P, Gandaglia G, et al. Not all multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted Biopsies are equal: The impact of the type of approach and operator expertise on the detection of clinically significant prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2018; 1:120–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2018.02.002.