Affordable Access

deepdyve-link
Publisher Website

Comparison of classical transrectal prostate biopsy versus cognitive registration in rebiopsy.

Authors
  • Barbas Bernardos, G1
  • Herranz Amo, F2
  • de Miguel Campos, E3
  • Luis Cardo, A2
  • Herranz Arriero, A4
  • Cancho Gil, M J2
  • Caño Velasco, J2
  • Jara Rascón, J2
  • Mayor de Castro, J2
  • Hernández Fernández, C2
  • 1 Servicio de Urología, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón. Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Complutense (UCM), Madrid, España. Electronic address: [email protected]
  • 2 Servicio de Urología, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón. Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Complutense (UCM), Madrid, España.
  • 3 Servicio de Radiodiagnóstico, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón. Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Complutense (UCM), Madrid, España.
  • 4 Estudiante de Medicina UCM 5.° curso, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Complutense (UCM), Madrid, España.
Type
Published Article
Journal
Actas urologicas espanolas
Publication Date
Jun 01, 2019
Volume
43
Issue
5
Pages
228–233
Identifiers
DOI: 10.1016/j.acuro.2018.06.010
PMID: 30833102
Source
Medline
Keywords
Language
Spanish
License
Unknown

Abstract

The aim of this study is to compare performance of two biopsy approaches in patients with at least one previous negative prostate biopsy (PB): classical transrectal biopsy (ClTB) versus cognitive registration biopsy (COG-TB). A retrospective study of 205 patients with at least one negative PB. 144 (70.2%) patients underwent a prior mpMRI and 61 (29.8%) patients did not. Nodule classification was carried out according PI-RADS version 2. Peripheral zone (PZ) grouped pZa, pZpl and pZpm areas, transition zone (TZ) Tza, Tzp and Cz areas, and anterior zone (AZ) AS areas. COG-TB was conducted in patients with previous mpMRI (144); while in the remaining 61 (29.8%) patients a ClTB of PZ and TZ was performed. Statistical analysis was performed using Chi square and T-student tests for qualitative and quantitative variables, respectively. Multivariate analysis was carried out in order to identify predictive variables of prostate cancer. Median patient age was 68 (IQR 62-72) years, median PSA was 8.3 (IQR 6.2-11.7) ng/ml and median previous biopsies was 1 (IQR 1-2). Digital rectal examinations (DRE) findings were normal in 169 (82.4%) patients and suspicious in 36 (17.6%) patients (cT2a-b in 34 patients and cT2c in 2). Median prostate volume was 48 (IQR 38-65) cc. Statistically significant differences in PSAD between both groups were found (P=.03). Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) showed hypoechoic nodules in 8 (13.1%) ClTB patients and in 62 (43.1%) COG-TB patients (P=.0001). The median number of biopsy cylinders per set of prostate biopsies was 10 (IQR 10-10) in ClTB group and 11 (IQR 9-13) in COG-TB group (P=.75). Cancer was diagnosed in 74 (36.1%) patients: of them, 10 (16.4%) were ClTB patients and 64 (44.4%) COG-TB (P=.0001). Tumors classification was as follow: ISUP-1: 34 (45.9%), ISUP-2: 21 (28.4%), ISUP-3: 9 (12.2%), ISUP-4: 7 (9.5%) and ISUP-5: 3 (4.1%). No significant statistical differences were found (P=.89). The median number of biopsy cylinders impaired per set of prostate biopsies was 1 (IQR 1-5) in ClTB group and 2 (IQR 1-4) in COG-TB group (P=.93). Regarding independent predictive variables for prostate cancer the results were: age (OR=12.05; P=.049), suspicious DRE (OR=2.64; P=.04), hypoechoic nodule (OR=2.20; P=.03) and mpMRI +COG-TB sequence (OR=3.49; P=.003). In patients with at least one negative PB, mpMRI +COG-TB sequence improves 3.5 (OR=3.49) times the diagnosis prostate vs. ClTB. Copyright © 2018 AEU. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.

Report this publication

Statistics

Seen <100 times