Русский
Fusion biopsy of the prostate
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/urology.2019.3.142-148
A.V. Okishev, A.V. Govorov, A.O. Vasilyev, A.V. Bormotin, D.Y. Pushkar
Department of Urology of MSMSU named after A.I. Evdokimov, Moscow, Russia
Aim. to compare the prostate cancer (PCa) detection rate, accuracy and safety of prostate image-guided fusion biopsy methods (cognitive fusion, software-fusion and HistoScanning-guided biopsy) on the basis of published studies in patients from 48 to 75 years with suspected prostate cancer during primary or repeat biopsy. To identify the limitations of these methods and improve the efficiency of fusion biopsy of the prostate in a further clinical trial.
Materials and methods. search was carried out in the PubMed, Medline, Web of Science and eLibrary databases using following requests: (prostate cancer OR prostate adenocarcinoma) AND (MRI or magnetic resonance) AND (targeted biopsy); (prostate cancer OR prostate adenocarcinoma) AND (PHS OR Histoscanning) AND (targeted biopsy) and (prostate cancer OR prostate adenocarcinoma) AND (MRI or magnetic resonance) AND (targeted biopsy) AND (cognitive registration), targeted prostate biopsy, prostate histoscanning, histoscanning, cognitive prostate biopsy.
Results. a total of 672 publications were found, of which 25 original scientific papers were included in the analysis (n=4634). According to the results, PCa detection rate in patients with an average age of 62.5 years. (48–75) and an average PSA of 6.3 ng/ml (4.1–10.8), who underwent cognitive fusion biopsy under MRI control (MR-fusion) was 32.5%, compared to 30% and 35% for histoscanning in combination with a systematic biopsy and combination of methods (MR-fusion biopsy and histoscanning-guided biopsy), respectively. The accuracy of cognitive MR-fusion biopsy was 49.8% (20.8%–82%), the accuracy of the software MR-fusion biopsy was 52.5% (26.5%–69.7%), the accuracy of histoscanning-guided targeted biopsy was 46.8% (26%–75.8%). The highest values were observed in the patients undergoing primary biopsy (75.8%).
Discussion. Currently, imaging methods allow us to change the approach to the diagnosis of PCa by improving the efficiency of prostate biopsy, the only formal method for verifying PCa. A common method for PCa diagnosis in 2018 is a systematic prostate biopsy. However, due to the its drawbacks, fusion biopsy under control of MRI or ultrasound has being introduced into clinical practice with superior results. So far, there is a lack of sufficient scientific data to select a specific technique of the fusion biopsy of the prostate. According to the analysis, it was concluded that the incidence of complications didn’t increase when performing targeted biopsy in addition to the systematic protocol.
Conclusion. The efficiency of cognitive MR-fusion biopsy is comparable to software MR-fusion biopsy. Histoscanning-guided biopsy has lower diagnostic value than MR-guided target biopsy using software. The lack of solid conclusions in favor of a particular prostate fusion biopsy technique stresses on the relevance of further research on this topic.
Materials and methods. search was carried out in the PubMed, Medline, Web of Science and eLibrary databases using following requests: (prostate cancer OR prostate adenocarcinoma) AND (MRI or magnetic resonance) AND (targeted biopsy); (prostate cancer OR prostate adenocarcinoma) AND (PHS OR Histoscanning) AND (targeted biopsy) and (prostate cancer OR prostate adenocarcinoma) AND (MRI or magnetic resonance) AND (targeted biopsy) AND (cognitive registration), targeted prostate biopsy, prostate histoscanning, histoscanning, cognitive prostate biopsy.
Results. a total of 672 publications were found, of which 25 original scientific papers were included in the analysis (n=4634). According to the results, PCa detection rate in patients with an average age of 62.5 years. (48–75) and an average PSA of 6.3 ng/ml (4.1–10.8), who underwent cognitive fusion biopsy under MRI control (MR-fusion) was 32.5%, compared to 30% and 35% for histoscanning in combination with a systematic biopsy and combination of methods (MR-fusion biopsy and histoscanning-guided biopsy), respectively. The accuracy of cognitive MR-fusion biopsy was 49.8% (20.8%–82%), the accuracy of the software MR-fusion biopsy was 52.5% (26.5%–69.7%), the accuracy of histoscanning-guided targeted biopsy was 46.8% (26%–75.8%). The highest values were observed in the patients undergoing primary biopsy (75.8%).
Discussion. Currently, imaging methods allow us to change the approach to the diagnosis of PCa by improving the efficiency of prostate biopsy, the only formal method for verifying PCa. A common method for PCa diagnosis in 2018 is a systematic prostate biopsy. However, due to the its drawbacks, fusion biopsy under control of MRI or ultrasound has being introduced into clinical practice with superior results. So far, there is a lack of sufficient scientific data to select a specific technique of the fusion biopsy of the prostate. According to the analysis, it was concluded that the incidence of complications didn’t increase when performing targeted biopsy in addition to the systematic protocol.
Conclusion. The efficiency of cognitive MR-fusion biopsy is comparable to software MR-fusion biopsy. Histoscanning-guided biopsy has lower diagnostic value than MR-guided target biopsy using software. The lack of solid conclusions in favor of a particular prostate fusion biopsy technique stresses on the relevance of further research on this topic.
About the Autors
Corresponding author: A.V. Okishev – urologist, Ph.D. student at the Department of Urology of MSMSU named after A.I. Evdokimov of Minzdrav of Russia, Moscow, Russia; e-mail: okishev.art@gmail.com
Similar Articles
