Abstract
Introduction: Currently prostatic biopsy on target found at the multiparametric MRI of the prostate is the best way to diagnose prostate cancer.
The European Association of Urology guidelines, updated to 2022, recommend to perform MRI-targeted prostate biopsy plus standard prostate biopsy when a PI-RADS 3 to 5 lesion is detected.
The aim of the study is to establish if there is a real benefit of perfoming MRI-targeted prostate biopsy plus standard sampling when every PI-RADS 3 lesion is detected.
Case study: We performed a retrospective monocentric study at “San Pio” Hospital of Castellaneta, Italy.
76 patients underwent MRI-targeted prostatic biopsy with fusion or cognitive approach, associated with random sampling.
Results: Among the 124 biopsies on PI-RADS 3 lesions of our study only two PI-RADS 3 reported a positive outcome for not significant PCa detection.
Conclusion: Our results do not show a sure and real advantage in performing targeted prostate biopsy in all the patients with only PI-RADS 3 lesions and it may be appropriate to evaluate biopsy performance in these patients from case to case.
Keywords: Transperineal Prostate Biopsy; Fusion-Targeted Biopsy; Cognitive-targeted biopsy; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; PI-RADS 3; Prostate Cancer; Detection Rate
References
- Michael Ahdoot., et al. “MRI-Targeted, Systematic, and Combined Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis”. N Engl J Med 382.10 (2020): 917-928.
- Yasuhiro Y., et al. “Moving away from systematic biopsies: image-guided prostate biopsy (in-bore biopsy, cognitive fusion biopsy, MRUS fusion biopsy)-literature review”. World J Urol 39.3 (2021): 677-686.
- Xiang Tu., et al. “Transperineal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Biopsy May Pefrform Better Than Transrectal Route in the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis”. Clin Genitourin Cancer 17.5 (2019): e860-e870.
- Marco R and Sebastiano DL. “Transperineal Freehand US/MRI Fusion Target Prostate Biopsy using the Esaote MylabTM9 System: A Step by Step Guide”. J Dise Dis Tre (2022).
- Bass EJ., et al. Emberton M, Ahmed HU. “Magnetic resonance imaging targeted transperineal prostate biopsy: a local anaesthetic approach”. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 20.3 (2017): 311- 317.
- Smith CP and Tu?rkbey B. “PI-RADS v2: Current standing and future outlook”. Turk J Urol 44.3 (2018): 189-194.
- EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer (2022).
- Marco R et Sebastiano DL. “Are there Detection Rate Differences of Transperineal Freehand US/MRI Fusion Target Prostate Biopsy in Two Different Patient Settings: Under Local Anesthesia or Under Deep Sedation?”. Int J Clin Invest Case Rep (2022).
- Stacy Loeb., et al. “Pathological characteristics of prostate cancer detected through prostate specific antigen based screening”. J Urol 175 (2006): 902-6.
- Jerome P Richie., et al. “Effect of patient age on early detection of prostate cancer with serum prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination”. Urology 42.4 (1993): 365-74.
- William J Catalona., et al. “Comparison of digital rectal examination and serum prostate specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer: results of a multicenter clinical trial of 6,630 men”. J Urol 197.2S (2017): S200-S207.
- Smith CP and Tu?rkbey B. “PI-RADS v2: Current standing and future outlook”. Turk J Urol 44.3 (2018): 189-194.
- Blake BA., et al. “Extraprostatic Extension Is Extremely Rare for Contemporary Gleason Score 6 Prostate Cancer”. Prostate Cancer 72.3 (2017): 455-460.