Histologic Confirmation of a Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy by Performing 3-Dimensional Transrectal Ultrasonography–guided Biopsy With Fusion to Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Klein, Jacques-Olivier; Benamran, Daniel; Vallée, Jean‐Paul; Iselin, Christophe

doi:10.1016/j.urology.2014.07.031

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A further emphasis on MRI contribution is witnessed by our data that show that PI-RADS score significantly correlates with cancer detection rate (p = 0.02), as also demonstrated by other authors [10,16] . Therefore, it appears convincing to consider that the accuracy of diagnosing PC is directly related to MRI quality, as for instance shown when aiming to identify local recurrence foci of PC after radical prostatectomy [29] . Considering only TB in the T3D group, we had a detection rate of 52% of which 89% corresponded to significant PCs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Prostate Biopsy for Cancer Detection: Performance of 2D-, 3D- and 3D-MRI Fusion Targeted Techniques

Klein¹,

Górski²,

Benamran³

et al. 2016

Urol Int

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The study aimed to evaluate 3 different modalities of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsies (PBs; 2D-, 3D- and targeted 3D-TRUS with fusion to MRI - T3D). Primary end point was the detection rate of prostate cancer (PC). Secondary end point was the detection rate of insignificant PC according to the Epstein criteria. Patients and Methods: Inclusion of 284 subsequent patients who underwent 2D-, 3D- or T3D PB from 2011 to 2015. All patients having PB for initial PC detection with a serum prostate-specific antigen value ≤20 ng/ml were included. Patients with T4 and/or clinical and/or radiological metastatic disease, so as these under active surveillance were excluded. Results: Patients with T3D PB had a significantly higher detection rate of PC (58 vs. 19% for 2D and 38% for 3D biopsies; p = 0.001), with no difference in Gleason score distribution (p = 0.644), as well as detection rate of low-risk cancers (p = 0.914). Main predictive factor for positive biopsies was the technique used, with respectively a 3- and 8-fold higher detection rate in the 3D- and T3D group. For T3D-PB, there was a significant correlation between radiological cancer suspicion (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Score) and cancer detection rate (p = 0.02). Conclusions: T3D PB should be preferred over 2D PB and 3D PB in patients with suspected PC as it improves the cancer detection rate.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%