Home > Journals > Minerva Urology and Nephrology > Past Issues > Minerva Urology and Nephrology 2021 June;73(3) > Minerva Urology and Nephrology 2021 June;73(3):357-66

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe PROMO
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as
Share

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE   

Minerva Urology and Nephrology 2021 June;73(3):357-66

DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6051.20.03758-3

Copyright © 2020 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Diagnostic performance of MRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsies vs. systematic prostate biopsies in biopsy-naïve, previous negative biopsy patients and men undergoing active surveillance

Marco BORGHESI 1, Lorenzo BIANCHI 1, 2 , Umberto BARBARESI 1, Valerio VAGNONI 1, Beniamino CORCIONI 3, Caterina GAUDIANO 3, Michelangelo FIORENTINO 4, 5, Francesca GIUNCHI 4, Francesco CHESSA 1, 2, Marco GAROFALO 1, 2, Alessandro BERTACCINI 1, 2, Stefano ANGELINI 6, Amelio ERCOLINO 1, Carlo CASABLANCA 1, Matteo DROGHETTI 1, Rita GOLFIERI 3, Riccardo SCHIAVINA 1, 2

1 Division of Urology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy; 2 University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy; 3 Department of Radiology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy; 4 Pathology Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy; 5 Department of Pathology, C.A. Pizzardi-Maggiore Hospital, Bologna, Italy; 6 Department of Hematology, G. e C. Mazzoni Hospital, Ascoli Piceno, Italy



BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the detection rate of overall PCa and csPCa, and the clinical impact of MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy (FUSION-TB) compared to TRUS guided systematic biopsy (SB) in patients with different biopsy settings.
METHODS: Three hundred and five patients were submitted to FUSION-TB, divided into three groups: biopsy naïve patients, previous negative biopsies and patients under active surveillance (AS). All patients had a single suspicious index lesion at mpMRI. Within these groups, we enrolled men underwent both to FUSION-TB and SB in the same session. Overall detection rate of PCa and csPCa for the two biopsy methods were compared separately between the three groups of patients.
RESULTS: No differences were observed between the three groups concerning clinical and radiological characteristics. We found no differences in terms of overall PCa detection (66% vs. 63.8%, P=0.617) and csPCa detection (56.4% vs. 51.1%; P=0.225) concerning biopsy naïve patients. In patients previously submitted to a negative biopsy, FUSION-TB showed higher detection rate of csPCa compared to SB alone (41,3% vs. 27% respectively, P=0.038). In patients under AS, no differences were observed between FUSION-TB and SB in terms of overall PCa (50% vs. 73.1%) and csPCa (30.8% vs. 26.9%, respectively; P=0.705) detection.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that in men with previously negative biopsy, FUSION-TB showed significantly higher diagnostic performance for clinically significant PCa as compared to SB. Combination of FUSION-TB and SB should be recommended in AS population to offer higher chance of csPCa diagnosis.


KEY WORDS: Prostatic neoplasms; Magnetic resonance imaging; Biopsy

top of page