Systematic 12-and 13-core transrectal ultrasound- or magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies significantly improve prostate cancer detection rate: A single-center 13-year experience

被引:4
|
作者
Cheng, Gong [1 ]
Huang, Yuan [1 ]
Liu, Bianjiang [1 ]
Zhao, Ruizhe [1 ]
Shao, Pengfei [1 ]
Li, Jie [1 ]
Qin, Chao [1 ]
Hua, Lixin [1 ]
Yin, Changjun [1 ]
机构
[1] Nanjing Med Univ, Affiliated Hosp 1, Dept Urol, Nanjing 210029, Jiangsu, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
prostate cancer; biopsy; transrectal ultrasound; magnetic resonance imaging; SEXTANT BIOPSIES;
D O I
10.3892/ol.2014.2353
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the value of systematic 12- and 13-core biopsies, guided by transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with regard to the prostate cancer detection rate (PCDR). Between July 1999 and June 2012, 2,707 patients were recruited to the Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University (Nanjing, China). Prostate biopsies were performed via systematic 12- or 13-core biopsy and guided by either TRUS or MRI. The PCDR was established by retrospectively analyzing the distribution of positive cores, and it was assumed that all patients had undergone four biopsy schemes: Medial 6-core, lateral 6-core, 12-core and entire 13-core. In addition, the positive rate of the biopsies with the extra 13th core and the mean positive rate of systematic 12-core biopsies were compared. The PCDR of an entire 13-core biopsy was significantly higher than that of a lateral 6-core biopsy. The positive rate of the extra 13th core, which identified abnormal TRUS or MRI findings, was significantly higher when compared with that of the mean positive rate of the systematic 12-core biopsy. The results of the present study demonstrated that the entire 13-core biopsy was superior to the 6-core biopsy with regard to the PCDR. Therefore, the systematic 12-core biopsy with an extra 13th core is considered to be beneficial towards improving the PCDR.
引用
收藏
页码:1834 / 1838
页数:5
相关论文
共 18 条
  • [1] Where Do Transrectal Ultrasound- and Magnetic Resonance Imaging-guided Biopsies Miss Significant Prostate Cancer?
    Boesen, Lars
    Norgaard, Nis
    Logager, Vibeke
    Balslev, Ingegerd
    Thomsen, Henrik S.
    UROLOGY, 2017, 110 : 154 - 160
  • [2] Are Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Targeted Biopsies Noninferior to Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Systematic Biopsies for the Detection of Prostate Cancer?
    Delongchamps, Nicolas Barry
    Portalez, Daniel
    Bruguiere, Eric
    Rouviere, Olivier
    Malavaud, Bernard
    Mozer, Pierre
    Fiard, Gaelle
    Cornud, Francois
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2016, 196 (04): : 1069 - 1075
  • [3] Magnetic Resonance Imaging-guided In-bore and Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Prostate Biopsies: An Adjusted Comparison of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Detection Rate
    Costa, Daniel N.
    Goldberg, Kenneth
    de Leon, Alberto Diaz
    Lotan, Yair
    Xi, Yin
    Aziz, Muhammad
    Freifeld, Yuval
    Margulis, Vitaly
    Raj, Ganesh
    Roehrborn, Claus G.
    Hornberger, Brad
    Desai, Neil
    Bagrodia, Aditya
    Francis, Franto
    Pedrosa, Ivan
    Cadeddu, Jeffrey A.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY ONCOLOGY, 2019, 2 (04): : 397 - 404
  • [4] Different T-PSA and prostate volume detection of prostate cancer by using 13-core and theoretical 10-core transrectal ultrasound-guided needle biopsies scheme
    Chen, Yehui
    Zhao, Shijia
    Hu, Zhiwen
    Zhang, Zhi
    Lin, Huaxin
    Li, Miaoyuan
    Nie, Pin
    Jiang, Wen
    Dai, Qishan
    Du, Hong
    Zhong, Weide
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE, 2016, 9 (04): : 7217 - 7222
  • [5] CT-guided transgluteal biopsy for systematic sampling of the prostate in patients without rectal access: a 13-year single-center experience
    Michael C. Olson
    Thomas D. Atwell
    Lance A. Mynderse
    Bernard F. King
    Timothy Welch
    Ajit H. Goenka
    European Radiology, 2017, 27 : 3326 - 3332
  • [6] Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound-Fusion Biopsy Significantly Upgrades Prostate Cancer Versus Systematic 12-core Transrectal Ultrasound Biopsy
    Siddiqui, M. Minhaj
    Rais-Bahrami, Soroush
    Hong Truong
    Stamatakis, Lambros
    Vourganti, Srinivas
    Nix, Jeffrey
    Hoang, Anthony N.
    Walton-Diaz, Annerleim
    Shuch, Brian
    Weintraub, Michael
    Kruecker, Jochen
    Amalou, Hayet
    Turkbey, Baris
    Merino, Maria J.
    Choyke, Peter L.
    Wood, Bradford J.
    Pinto, Peter A.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2013, 64 (05) : 713 - 719
  • [7] CT-guided transgluteal biopsy for systematic sampling of the prostate in patients without rectal access: a 13-year single-center experience
    Olson, Michael C.
    Atwell, Thomas D.
    Mynderse, Lance A.
    King, Bernard F.
    Welch, Timothy
    Goenka, Ajit H.
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2017, 27 (08) : 3326 - 3332
  • [8] Does magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy improve prostate cancer detection? A comparison of systematic, cognitive fusion and ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy
    Kam, Jonathan
    Yuminaga, Yuigi
    Kim, Raymond
    Aluwihare, Kushlan
    Macneil, Finlay
    Ouyang, Rupert
    Ruthven, Stephen
    Louie-Johnsun, Mark
    PROSTATE INTERNATIONAL, 2018, 6 (03) : 88 - 93
  • [9] Prospective Assessment of Prostate Cancer Aggressiveness Using 3-T Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Biopsies Versus a Systematic 10-Core Transrectal Ultrasound Prostate Biopsy Cohort
    Hambrock, Thomas
    Hoeks, Caroline
    Hulsbergen-van de Kaa, Christina
    Scheenen, Tom
    Futterer, Jurgen
    Bouwense, Stefan
    van Oort, Inge
    Schroder, Fritz
    Huisman, Henkjan
    Barentsz, Jelle
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2012, 61 (01) : 177 - 184
  • [10] Re: Prospective Assessment of Prostate Cancer Aggressiveness Using 3-T Diffusion-weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging-guided Biopsies Versus a Systematic 10-core Transrectal Ultrasound Prostate Biopsy Cohort
    Li, Jinyi
    Gruschow, Siobhan
    Tewari, Ashutosh
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2012, 62 (04) : 731 - 732