Department of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Radiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
BJU Int. 2020 Oct;126(4):481-493. doi: 10.1111/bju.15093. Epub 2020 May 13.
To compare and evaluate a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)-targeted biopsy (TBx) strategy, contrast-ultrasound-dispersion imaging (CUDI)-TBx strategy and systematic biopsy (SBx) strategy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in biopsy-naïve men.
A prospective, single-centre paired diagnostic study included 150 biopsy-naïve men, from November 2015 to November 2018. All men underwent pre-biopsy mpMRI and CUDI followed by a 12-core SBx taken by an operator blinded from the imaging results. Men with suspicious lesions on mpMRI and/or CUDI also underwent MRI-TRUS fusion-TBx and/or cognitive CUDI-TBx after SBx by a second operator. A non-inferiority analysis of the mpMRI- and CUDI-TBx strategies in comparison with SBx for International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group [GG] ≥2 PCa in any core with a non-inferiority margin of 1 percentage point was performed. Additional analyses for GG ≥2 PCa with cribriform growth pattern and/or intraductal carcinoma (CR/IDC), and GG ≥3 PCa were performed. Differences in detection rates were tested using McNemar's test with adjusted Wald confidence intervals.
After enrolment of 150 men, an interim analysis was performed. Both the mpMRI- and CUDI-TBx strategies were inferior to SBx for GG ≥2 PCa detection and the study was stopped. SBx found significantly more GG ≥2 PCa: 39% (56/142), as compared with 29% (41/142) and 28% (40/142) for mpMRI-TBx and CUDI-TBx, respectively (P < 0.05). SBx found significantly more GG = 1 PCa: 14% (20/142) compared to 1% (two of 142) and 3% (four of 142) with mpMRI-TBx and CUDI-TBx, respectively (P < 0.05). Detection of GG ≥2 PCa with CR/IDC and GG ≥3 PCa did not differ significantly between the strategies. The mpMRI- and CUDI-TBx strategies were comparable in detection but the mpMRI-TBx strategy had less false-positive findings (18% vs 53%).
In our study in biopsy-naïve men, the mpMRI- and CUDI-TBx strategies had comparable PCa detection rates, but the mpMRI-TBX strategy had the least false-positive findings. Both strategies were inferior to SBx for the detection of GG ≥2 PCa, despite reduced detection of insignificant GG = 1 PCa. Both strategies did not significantly differ from SBx for the detection of GG ≥2 PCa with CR/IDC and GG ≥3 PCa.
比较和评估多参数磁共振成像(mpMRI)靶向活检(TBx)策略、对比超声分散成像(CUDI)-TBx 策略和系统活检(SBx)策略在初诊前列腺癌(csPCa)患者中的检测效果。
一项前瞻性、单中心配对诊断研究纳入了 150 名初诊前列腺癌患者,纳入时间为 2015 年 11 月至 2018 年 11 月。所有患者均在术前接受了 mpMRI 和 CUDI 检查,然后由一位对影像结果不知情的操作者进行 12 针 SBx。对于在 mpMRI 和/或 CUDI 上有可疑病变的患者,在 SBx 后由第二位操作者进行 MRI-TRUS 融合-TBx 和/或认知 CUDI-TBx。通过非劣效性分析比较了 mpMRI 和 CUDI-TBx 策略与 SBx 对任何核心中国际泌尿病理学会分级组 [GG]≥2 前列腺癌的检测效果,非劣效性边界为 1%。还对 GG≥2 伴有筛状生长模式和/或管内癌(CR/IDC)以及 GG≥3 的前列腺癌进行了分析。采用调整后的 Wald 置信区间进行 McNemar 检验比较检测率的差异。
在纳入 150 名患者后进行了中期分析。mpMRI-TBx 和 CUDI-TBx 策略在 GG≥2 前列腺癌的检测效果均劣于 SBx,因此研究提前终止。SBx 发现 GG≥2 前列腺癌的比例显著更高:39%(56/142),而 mpMRI-TBx 和 CUDI-TBx 分别为 29%(41/142)和 28%(40/142)(P<0.05)。SBx 发现 GG=1 前列腺癌的比例显著更高:14%(20/142),而 mpMRI-TBx 和 CUDI-TBx 分别为 1%(2/142)和 3%(4/142)(P<0.05)。在不同策略中,CR/IDC 和 GG≥3 前列腺癌的 GG≥2 前列腺癌的检出率无显著差异。mpMRI-TBx 和 CUDI-TBx 策略在检测效果方面具有可比性,但 mpMRI-TBx 策略的假阳性率较低(18% vs 53%)。
在我们的初诊前列腺癌患者中,mpMRI-TBx 和 CUDI-TBx 策略的前列腺癌检出率相当,但前者的假阳性发现更少。尽管降低了不显著的 GG=1 前列腺癌的检出率,但是这两种策略在检测 GG≥2 前列腺癌方面均劣于 SBx。在检测 GG≥2 伴有 CR/IDC 和 GG≥3 前列腺癌方面,这两种策略与 SBx 均无显著差异。