Acta radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987) · 2021
Transrectal ultrasound features and biopsy outcomes of transition PI-RADS 5.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chung Jae Hoon, Park Byung Kwan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Transition Prostate Imaging and Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 5 is easily detected owing to typical magnetic resonance imaging features. However, it is unclear as to how transition PI-RADS 5 appears on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS).
PURPOSE: To assess TRUS features of transition PI-RADS 5 and outcomes of TRUS-guided target biopsy.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between March 2014 and November 2018, 186 male patients underwent TRUS-guided biopsy of PI-RADS 5. Of them, 82 and 104were transition and peripheral PI-RADS 5, respectively. Transition and peripheral PI-RADS 5 were compared according to echogenicity (hyperechoic or hypoechoic) and hypoechoic rim (present or absent). Each tumor was targeted with TRUS based on TRUS features. Significant (Gleason score ≥7) and insignificant (Gleason score 6) cancer detection rates (CDRs) were compared between transition and peripheral PI-RADS 5. Standard reference was biopsy examination. Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: Transition PI-RADS 5 was hyperechoic in 89.0% (73/82) and had a hypoechoic rim in 97.6% (80/82), whereas peripheral PI-RADS 5 was hypoechoic in 99.0% (103/104) and had a hypoechoic rim in 26.9% (28/104) (both, P<0.0001). The significant CDRs of transition and peripheral PI-RADS 5 were 56.1% (46/82) and 65.4% (68/104), respectively (P=0.2263). However, the insignificant CDRs of these categories were 22.0% (18/82) and 8.7% (9/104), respectively (P=0.0123).
CONCLUSION: Transition PI-RADS 5 tends to have hyperechoic echogenicity and a hypoechoic rim. These findings help to target the transition PI-RADS 5 using TRUS. However, transition PI-RADS 5 is confirmed more frequently as insignificant cancer than peripheral PI-RADS 5.
PURPOSE: To assess TRUS features of transition PI-RADS 5 and outcomes of TRUS-guided target biopsy.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between March 2014 and November 2018, 186 male patients underwent TRUS-guided biopsy of PI-RADS 5. Of them, 82 and 104were transition and peripheral PI-RADS 5, respectively. Transition and peripheral PI-RADS 5 were compared according to echogenicity (hyperechoic or hypoechoic) and hypoechoic rim (present or absent). Each tumor was targeted with TRUS based on TRUS features. Significant (Gleason score ≥7) and insignificant (Gleason score 6) cancer detection rates (CDRs) were compared between transition and peripheral PI-RADS 5. Standard reference was biopsy examination. Fisher's exact test was used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: Transition PI-RADS 5 was hyperechoic in 89.0% (73/82) and had a hypoechoic rim in 97.6% (80/82), whereas peripheral PI-RADS 5 was hypoechoic in 99.0% (103/104) and had a hypoechoic rim in 26.9% (28/104) (both, P<0.0001). The significant CDRs of transition and peripheral PI-RADS 5 were 56.1% (46/82) and 65.4% (68/104), respectively (P=0.2263). However, the insignificant CDRs of these categories were 22.0% (18/82) and 8.7% (9/104), respectively (P=0.0123).
CONCLUSION: Transition PI-RADS 5 tends to have hyperechoic echogenicity and a hypoechoic rim. These findings help to target the transition PI-RADS 5 using TRUS. However, transition PI-RADS 5 is confirmed more frequently as insignificant cancer than peripheral PI-RADS 5.