|
KMID : 1140320210050030125
|
|
Precision and Future Medicine
2021 Volume.5 No. 3 p.125 ~ p.132
|
|
|
Is transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy necessary after PI-RADS 4 is targeted?
|
|
Kim Hyun-Soo
Park Byung-Kwan
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
Purpose: Target biopsy is usually performed in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 4. Still, it is unclear if adding systematic biopsy to target biopsy influences cancer detection. The aim was to assess the role of systematic biopsy for detecting significant cancer after PI-RADS 4 is targeted.
Methods: Between March 2014 and November 2018, 182 men with PI-RADS 4 underwent transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy. Systematic biopsy was added to target biopsy in 128 men (Group I) by May 2018 because PI-RADS 4 was not completely visible on TRUS, while it was done in 54 men (Group II) from June 2018 regardless of lesion visibility. Significant cancer detection rates (CDRs) were compared between the groups regarding target and systematic biopsies. Major complication rate was also compared. Significant cancer was defined as a Gleason score ≥7 tumor. Standard reference was biopsy examination. Fisher’s exact were used for statistical analysis.
Results: The significant CDRs were 21.9% (28/128) in the Group I and 38.9% (21/54) in the Group II (P= 0.0273). The significant cancers of Group I and II were missed in two (1.6%) and in one (1.9%) by target biopsy, respectively. Major complication rates of these groups were 0.8% (1/128) and 0% (0/54), respectively (P= 0.999).
Conclusion: Systematic biopsy should be added to target biopsy even though PI-RADS 4 is clearly visible on ultrasound. A significant number of significant cancers are detected with systematic biopsy.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
Biopsy, Magnetic resonance imaging, Prostate neoplasms, Ultrasonography
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
|
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
|
|