4.7 Article

Follow-up of men with a PI-RADS 4/5 lesion after negative MRI/Ultrasound fusion biopsy

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-17260-6

关键词

-

资金

  1. Projekt DEAL

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluates the management and rate of clinically significant Prostate Cancer (csPCa) in patients with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) >= 4 lesion and a negative biopsy. The results suggest that men with a positive mpMRI and lesions with high suspicion should be considered for repeat biopsy or strict surveillance.
Magnetic resonance imaging/Ultrasound (MRI/US) fusion targeted biopsy (TB) in combination with a systematic biopsy (SB) improves cancer detection but limited data is available how to manage patients with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) >= 4 lesion and a negative biopsy. We evaluate the real-world management and the rate of clinically significant Prostate Cancer (csPCa) during follow-up. 1546 patients with a multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) and a PI-RADS >= 3 who underwent SB and TB between January 2012 and May 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. 222 men with a PI-RADS >= 4 and a negative biopsy were included until 2019. For 177/222 (80%) complete follow-up data was obtained. 66/84 (78%) had an initial PI-RADS 4 and 18 (22%) a PI-RADS 5 lesion. 48% (84/177) received a repeat mpMRI; in the follow-up mpMRI, 39/84 (46%) lesions were downgraded to PI-RADS 2 and 11 (13%) to PI-RADS 3; three cases were upgraded and 28 lesions remained consistent. 18% (32/177) men underwent repeated TB and csPCa was detected in 44% (14/32). Our study presents real world data on the management of men with a negative TB biopsy. Men with a positive mpMRI and lesions with high suspicion (PI-RADS4/5) and a negative targeted biopsy should be critically reviewed and considered for repeat biopsy or strict surveillance. The optimal clinical risk assessment remains to be further evaluated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据