Home > Riviste > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica > Fascicoli precedenti > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2019 October;71(5) > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2019 October;71(5):524-30

ULTIMO FASCICOLO
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
Per abbonarsi
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Estratti
Permessi
Per citare questo articolo

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE   

Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2019 October;71(5):524-30

DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03463-5

Copyright © 2019 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

lingua: Inglese

Can preoperative multiparametric MRI avoid unnecessary prostate biopsies before holmium laser enucleation of the prostate? Preliminary results of a multicentric cohort of patients

Marco GIAMPAOLI 1 , Lorenzo BIANCHI 2, Daniele D’AGOSTINO 1, Paolo CORSI 1, Daniele ROMAGNOLI 1, Federico MINEO BIANCHI 2, Alessandro DEL ROSSO 1, Riccardo SCHIAVINA 2, Eugenio BRUNOCILLA 2, Walter ARTIBANI 1, Angelo PORRECA 1

1 Department of Urology, Abano Terme Hospital, Abano Terme, Padua, Italy; 2 Department of Urology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy



BACKGROUND: Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is a surgical technique that allows to safely and effectively treat bladder outlet obstruction due to benign prostate enlargement and retrieve an adequate surgical specimen. We investigated the role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate (mpMRI) as a tool to exclude incidental prostate cancer (iPCa) and to compare mpMRI alone with a contextual transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy (TRUS-GB).
METHODS: Retrospective multicentric evaluation of 244 patients underwent to HoLEP with a suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa) due to raised PSA and/or abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) and a negative mpMRI (PI-RADS score <3), was performed. Of these, 118 patients had only a negative mpMRI (MRI group) while 126 had a negative mpMRI and a contextual preoperative negative TRUS-GB (MRI + TRUS-GB group). Comparison between the two groups, univariate and multivariate analysis were conducted in order to identify any predictive factors of iPCa.
RESULTS: Median age, PSA, prostate volume and PSA density were 64.0 years (IQR: 58.0-69.0), 6.10 ng/mL (IQR: 4.76-9.65), 86.0 cc (IQR: 65.0-115.0), 50.0 cc (IQR: 37.5-80.0) and 0.08 ng/mL/cc (IQR: 0.06-0.10), respectively. In surgical specimen, iPCa was detected in 21 cases (8.8%). No statistically differences between MRI and MRI + TRUS-GB group were found in terms of iPCa (7.6% and 8.5%, respectively), pathological T stage and ISUP Grade Group. A contextual TRUS-GB added to mpMRI did not correlate to iPCa either at uni- and multivariate analysis while a significant correlation of a PSA density >0.15 ng/mL/cc was found only at univariate analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: Including a mpMRI in clinical evaluation of patients eligible to HoLEP with a preoperative PCa suspicion leads to low the rates of iPCa and might avoid unnecessary TRUS-GB.


KEY WORDS: Magnetic resonance imaging; Solid-state lasers; Laser therapy; Prostatic neoplasms; Biopsy

inizio pagina