Magnetic resonance imaging‐guided targeted prostate biopsy: Comparison between computer‐software‐based fusion versus cognitive fusion technique in biopsy‐naïve patients. (6th October 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Yamada, Yasuhiro; Shiraishi, Takumi; Ueno, Akihisa; Ueda, Takashi; Fujihara, Atsuko; Naitoh, Yasuyuki; Hongo, Fumiya; Ukimura, Osamu
• Is Part Of: International journal of urology. Volume 27:Number 1(2020)
• Page Start: 67
• Page End: 71
• Publication Date: 2019-10-06
• Subjects: cognitive fusion -- magnetic resonance imaging -- magnetic resonance imaging‐ultrasound fusion -- prostate cancer -- targeted biopsy; Urology -- Periodicals; Genitourinary organs -- Periodicals; Urologic Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.6005
• DOI: 10.1111/iju.14127
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0919-8172

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: To compare magnetic resonance imaging‐guided cognitive fusion‐targeted biopsies versus computer‐software‐based fusion‐targeted biopsies in prostate biopsy‐naïve patients. Methods: This was a retrospective review of 298 consecutive patients, in which suspected clinically significant prostate cancer lesions were detected on pre‐biopsy magnetic resonance imaging, and cognitive fusion‐targeted biopsies or software‐guided magnetic resonance imaging‐ultrasound fusion‐targeted biopsies was carried out. The positivity rates of any cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer, Gleason score, and maximum cancer core length were compared between the cognitive fusion‐targeted biopsies and software‐guided magnetic resonance imaging‐ultrasound fusion‐targeted biopsies groups. Results: The any‐cancer positivity rate was 79.6% (90/113 patients) in the cognitive fusion‐targeted biopsies group and 84.8% (157/185 patients) in the software‐guided magnetic resonance imaging‐ultrasound fusion‐targeted biopsies group ( P = 0.516), and the clinically significant prostate cancer positivity rate was 72.5% (82/113 patients) in the cognitive fusion‐targeted biopsies group and 75.7% (140/185 patients) in the software‐guided magnetic resonance imaging‐ultrasound fusion‐targeted biopsies group ( P = 0.498). Among the patients in which the largest lesion diameter on magnetic resonance imaging was ≤5.0 mm, the clinically significant prostate cancer positivity rate was 39.2% (11/28 patients) in the cognitive fusion‐targeted biopsies group and 66.6% (24/36 patients) in the software‐guided magnetic resonance imaging‐ultrasound fusion‐targeted biopsies group ( P = 0.043). The median maximum cancer core length was 7.5 mm (0.25–16 mm) in the cognitive fusion‐targeted biopsies group and 8 mm (0.2–19 mm) in the software‐guided magnetic resonance imaging‐ultrasound fusion‐targeted biopsies group ( P = 0.040). Conclusions: Software‐guided magnetic resonance imaging‐ultrasound fusion‐targeted biopsies offers a greater detection rate for smaller targeted lesions and also superior ability to sample greater cancer core length compared with cognitive fusion‐targeted biopsies. The present results suggest that software‐guided magnetic resonance imaging‐ultrasound fusion‐targeted biopsies might improve biopsy outcomes compared with cognitive fusion‐targeted biopsies.