Home > Riviste > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica > Fascicoli precedenti > Articles online first > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2020 Nov 12

ULTIMO FASCICOLO
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
Per abbonarsi PROMO
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Estratti
Permessi
Per citare questo articolo

 

 

Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2020 Nov 12

DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.20.04008-4

Copyright © 2020 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

lingua: Inglese

Fusion US/MRI prostate biopsy using a Computer Aided Diagnostic (CAD) system

Mariaconsiglia FERRIERO 1 , Umberto ANCESCHI 1, Alfredo M. BOVE 1, Luca BERTINI 2, Rocco S. FLAMMIA 3, Guglielmo ZECCOLINI 4, Bernardino DE CONCILIO 4, Gabriele TUDERTI 1, Riccardo MASTROIANNI 3, Leonardo MISURACA 1, Aldo BRASSETTI 1, Salvatore GUAGLIANONE 1, Michele GALLUCCI 3, Antonio CELIA 4, Giuseppe SIMONE 1

1 Department of Urology, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy; 2 Department of Radiology, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy; 3 Department of Urology, Policlinico Umberto I, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy; 4 Department of Urology, San Bassiano Hospital, Bassano del Grappa, Vicenza, Italy


PDF


BACKGROUND: To investigate the impact of Computer Aided Diagnostic (CAD) system on the detection rate of prostate cancer (PCa) in a series of fusion prostate biopsy (FPB).
METHODS: Two prospective transperineal FPB series (with or without CAD assistance) were analyzed and PCa detection rates compared with per patient and per target analyses. Chi-Square and Mann-Whitney test were used to compare categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were applied to identify predictors of any and clinically-significant (cs) PCa detection. Subgroup analyses were performed after stratifying for PIRADS Score and lesion location.
RESULTS: Out of 183 FPB, 89 were performed with CAD assistance. At per patient analysis the detection rate of any PCa and of cs PCa were 56.3% and 30.6%, respectively; the aid of CAD was negligible for either any PCa or csPCa detection rates (p=0.45 and p=0.99, respectively). Conversely in a per target analysis, CAD-assisted biopsy had significantly higher positive predictive value (PPV) for any PCa versus MRI-only group (58%vs37.8%, p=0.001). PI-RADS Score was the only independent predictor of any and csPCa, either in per patient or per target multivariable regression analysis (all p<0.029). In a subgroup per patient analysis of anterior/transitional zone lesions, csPCa detection rate was significantly higher in the CAD cohort (54.5%vs11.1%, respectively; p=0.028), and CAD assistance was the only predictor of csPCa detection (p=0.013).
CONCLUSIONS: CAD assistance for FPB seems to improve detection of csPCa located in anterior/transitional zone. Enhanced identification and improved contouring of lesions may justify higher diagnostic performance.


KEY WORDS: Fusion prostate biopsy; Computer aided diagnosis; MRI; Detection rate, Imaging

inizio pagina