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
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