Home > Riviste > Minerva Urology and Nephrology > Fascicoli precedenti > Minerva Urology and Nephrology 2021 October;73(5) > Minerva Urology and Nephrology 2021 October;73(5):616-24



Opzioni di pubblicazione
Per abbonarsi
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca


Publication history
Per citare questo articolo


ORIGINAL ARTICLE   Free accessfree

Minerva Urology and Nephrology 2021 October;73(5):616-24

DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6051.20.04008-4


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, Umberto I Polyclinic, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy; 4 Department of Urology, San Bassiano Hospital, Bassano del Grappa, Vicenza, Italy

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was 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. The χ2 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 PI-RADS 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% vs. 37.8%, 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%vs.11.1%, 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: Biopsy; Prostate; Diagnosis, computer-assisted; Magnetic resonance imaging

inizio pagina