Current urology · 2024
Does a large prostate size, small lesion volume, or long needle distance from the probe to the lesion reduce magnetic resonance imaging-targeted cancer detection?
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.
Bevill Mark D, Drobish Justin N, Flynn Kevin J, Rajput Maheen, Metz Catherine, Tracy Chad R, Gellhaus Paul T
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate whether large prostate size, small lesion volume, or long lesion distance from the ultrasound probe tip would decrease cancer detection in transrectal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent MRI-targeted biopsy at our institution between May 2017 and August 2019 were enrolled in a prospective database. Three to 5 cores were obtained from ≥2 prostate imaging reporting and data system v2 lesions. A multivariable model was created that included needle distance to the lesion, prostate specific antigen, prostate imaging reporting and data system, lesion volume, and prostate volume.
RESULTS: A total of 377 patients with 533 lesions underwent a biopsy during the study period. A total of 233 (44%) lesions were positive for prostate cancer, and 173 (32%) lesions had clinically significant prostate cancer. The mean needle distance to the lesion was 11.7 mm (interquartile range, 7.6-15.5 mm). The likelihood of obtaining a positive core on biopsy decreased as the distance from the ultrasound probe increased for all prostate cancers and clinically significant prostate cancer (p = 0.018 and p = 0.004, respectively). Every 10 mm from the rectum, there was an 8%-10% decrease in the rate of cancer detection. Similarly, as the prostate volume increased, the odds of obtaining a positive core also decreased (p = 0.039). There was no significant association between the lesion size and amount of cancer obtained on biopsy.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data showed that transrectal MRI-targeted biopsy cancer detection modestly decreased the lesion from the ultrasound probe and with a large prostate volume but could not prove that lesion volume was a significant predictor of the amount of cancer detected.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent MRI-targeted biopsy at our institution between May 2017 and August 2019 were enrolled in a prospective database. Three to 5 cores were obtained from ≥2 prostate imaging reporting and data system v2 lesions. A multivariable model was created that included needle distance to the lesion, prostate specific antigen, prostate imaging reporting and data system, lesion volume, and prostate volume.
RESULTS: A total of 377 patients with 533 lesions underwent a biopsy during the study period. A total of 233 (44%) lesions were positive for prostate cancer, and 173 (32%) lesions had clinically significant prostate cancer. The mean needle distance to the lesion was 11.7 mm (interquartile range, 7.6-15.5 mm). The likelihood of obtaining a positive core on biopsy decreased as the distance from the ultrasound probe increased for all prostate cancers and clinically significant prostate cancer (p = 0.018 and p = 0.004, respectively). Every 10 mm from the rectum, there was an 8%-10% decrease in the rate of cancer detection. Similarly, as the prostate volume increased, the odds of obtaining a positive core also decreased (p = 0.039). There was no significant association between the lesion size and amount of cancer obtained on biopsy.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data showed that transrectal MRI-targeted biopsy cancer detection modestly decreased the lesion from the ultrasound probe and with a large prostate volume but could not prove that lesion volume was a significant predictor of the amount of cancer detected.