Display options
Cite
Koparal MY, Bulut EC, Çetin S, et al. Comparación de la resonancia magnética biopsia próstata transrectal guiada por ultrasonido con fusión de resonancia magnética con la biopsia próstata sistemática: resultados de un solo centro. [Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy with standard systematic biopsy: A single center experience.]. Arch Esp Urol. 2021;74(8):790-795
Koparal, M. Y., Bulut, E. C., Çetin, S., Coşar, U., Budak, F. �. �., Uçar, M., Tokgöz, N., Şentürk, A. B., Şen, �. �., & Sözen, T. S. (2021). Comparación de la resonancia magnética biopsia próstata transrectal guiada por ultrasonido con fusión de resonancia magnética con la biopsia próstata sistemática: resultados de un solo centro. [Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy with standard systematic biopsy: A single center experience.]. Archivos espanoles de urologia, 74(8), 790-795.
Koparal, Murat Yavuz, et al. "Comparación de la resonancia magnética biopsia próstata transrectal guiada por ultrasonido con fusión de resonancia magnética con la biopsia próstata sistemática: resultados de un solo centro." [Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy with standard systematic biopsy: A single center experience.]. Archivos espanoles de urologia vol. 74,8 (2021): 790-795.
Koparal MY, Bulut EC, Çetin S, Coşar U, Budak FÇ, Uçar M, Tokgöz N, Şentürk AB, Şen İ, Sözen TS. Comparación de la resonancia magnética biopsia próstata transrectal guiada por ultrasonido con fusión de resonancia magnética con la biopsia próstata sistemática: resultados de un solo centro. [Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy with standard systematic biopsy: A single center experience.]. Arch Esp Urol. 2021 Oct;74(8):790-795. Spanish. PMID: 34605408.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Arch Esp Urol. 2021 Oct;74(8):790-795.

[Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy with standard systematic biopsy: A single center experience.].

Archivos espanoles de urologia

[Article in Spanish]
Murat Yavuz Koparal, Ender Cem Bulut, Serhat Çetin, Uğur Coşar, Fırat Çağlar Budak, Murat Uçar, Nil Tokgöz, Aykut Buğra Şentürk, İlker Şen, Tevfik Sinan Sözen

Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology. Recep Tayyip Erdogan University Training and Research Hospital. Rize. Turkey.
  2. Department of Urology. Van Training and Research Hospital. Van. Turkey.
  3. Department of Urology. School of Medicine, Gazi University. Ankara. Turkey.
  4. Department of Radiology. School of Medicine, Gazi University. Ankara. Turkey.
  5. Urology Clinic. Lösante Children's and Adult Hospital. Ankara. Turkey.

PMID: 34605408

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare systematic biopsy with MRI-TRUS fusion prostate biopsy in terms of cancer detection rates.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: The data of the patients who had a Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score of 3 or more lesions on mpMRI and underwent MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy with simultaneous 12-core standard systematic biopsy from June 2016 to June 2019 in our tertiary center were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical, radiological and pathological data were recorded. Statistical difference among the groups was determined by using McNemar tests.

RESULTS: A total of 344 patients were included in the study. As a result of transrectal targeted and systematic combined biopsy, 117 patients were diagnosed with prostate cancer. Benign pathology rates in patients with PI-RADS 3, PI-RADS 4, and PI-RADS 5 lesions were 93.8%, 68.5%, and 46.4%, respectively. Patients were divided into two groups as ISUP grade 1 and ISUP grade ≥2 and cancer detection rates (CDRs) were found significantly higher in transrectal targeted biopsy compared with the systematic biopsy (12.5% vs. %6.4, p=0.007 and 17.4% vs. 8.7%, p<0.001, respectively). Targeted biopsy CDRs were found significantly higher in the high PSA density group (24.5% vs. 41.4%, p=0.001) unlike the systematic biopsy.

CONCLUSION: Transrectal targeted biopsy was superior to systematic biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Clinicians should be more selective when making a biopsy decision for patients with PI-RADS 3 lesions. PSA density can be used as a criterion for patient selection for targeted biopsy.

Keywords: Prostate cancer; fusion biopsy; multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging

MeSH terms

Publication Types