4.5 Article

Prostate cancer rates in patients with initially negative elastography-targeted biopsy vs. systematic biopsy

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 36, 期 4, 页码 623-628

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2178-x

关键词

Prostate biopsy; Targeted biopsy; Oncological outcome; Negative biopsy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To assess whether real-time elastography-targeted biopsy (RTE-bx) is superior to the standard systematic transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy in predicting subsequent prostate cancer (PCa) rates in patients with initially negative biopsy and to specifically reveal differences in the occurrence of high-grade (Gleason ae 4 + 3) PCa by comparing both biopsy methods. Overall, 630 patients had an initially negative prostate biopsy between 2007 and 2015, either RTE targeted (n = 213) or systematically (n = 417). Follow-up data, ascertained by a questionnaire, of patients receiving RTE-bx were compared to data of patients receiving systematic biopsy (sbx) using Mann-Whitney-U test and Chi-square test. We performed logistic regression analyses to assess any association with PCa or high-grade PCa occurrence. In total, 258 (41%) patients were diagnosed with PCa at repeat biopsy whereof 54 (8.6%) harboured high-grade PCa. PCa occurred in 95 (44.6%) patients with initially negative RTE-bx and in 163 (39.1%) patients with initially negative sbx (p = 0.003). 24 (11.3%) patients receiving RTE-bx and 30 (7.2%) patients receiving sbx were diagnosed with high-grade PCa (p = 0.095). Logistic regression analyses showed that patients with the initial RTE-bx vs. those with the initial sbx neither resulted in a significant higher risk for PCa occurrence (OR 1.35 [CI 0.87-2.1]; p = 0.2) nor for high-grade PCa occurrence (OR 1.52 [CI 0.66-3.35]; p = 0.3). We found no statistically significant association of prior biopsy method to subsequent PCa or high-grade PCa occurrence. Referring to our analyses, RTE is not superior to sbx in predicting subsequent PCa rates and, therefore, not eligible to decide on repeat biopsy.

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

4.5
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