| Online-Ressource |
Verfasst von: | Derigs, Fabian [VerfasserIn]  |
| Kowalewski, Karl-Friedrich [VerfasserIn]  |
| Hartung, Friedrich [VerfasserIn]  |
| Waldbillig, Frank [VerfasserIn]  |
| Neuberger, Manuel [VerfasserIn]  |
| Hardenberg, Jost von [VerfasserIn]  |
| Westhoff, Niklas Christian [VerfasserIn]  |
Titel: | A matched-pair analysis comparing systematic prostate biopsy by conventional transrectal ultrasound-guidance versus software-based predefined 3D-guidance |
Verf.angabe: | Fabian Derigs, Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski, Friedrich Otto Hartung, Frank Waldbillig, Manuel Neuberger, Jost von Hardenberg, and Niklas Westhoff |
E-Jahr: | 2023 |
Jahr: | July 2023 |
Umfang: | 6 S. |
Illustrationen: | Illustrationen |
Fussnoten: | Online verfügbar: 3. April 2023, Artikelversion: 10. August 2023 ; Gesehen am 20.11.2023 |
Titel Quelle: | Enthalten in: Urology |
Ort Quelle: | Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier Science, 1973 |
Jahr Quelle: | 2023 |
Band/Heft Quelle: | 177(2023) vom: Juli, Seite 128-133 |
ISSN Quelle: | 1527-9995 |
Abstract: | Objective - To compare software-based three-dimensional-guided systematic prostate biopsy (3D-GSB) with conventional transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy (TGSB) regarding prostate cancer (PCa) detection rates (CDR). - Methods - In total, 956 patients (200 TGSB patients and 756 3D-GSB patients) without prior positive biopsies and with a prostate-specific antigen value ≤20 ng/ml were eligible for analysis. TGSB and 3D-GSB cases were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity score matching with age, prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, previous biopsy status, and suspicious palpatory finding as confounders. 3D-GSB was conducted with the semi-robotic prostate fusion-biopsy system Artemis. For each patient in both groups, SB was conducted in a similar pattern with 12 cores. All cores in 3D-GSB were automatically planned and mapped on a 3D-model as well as on the real-time transrectal ultrasound imaging. Primary end points were the clinically significant (cs) and overall CDR. Secondary end point was the cancer-positive core rate. - Results - After matching, the csCDR was not significantly different between the 3D-GSB and the TGSB groups (33.3% vs 28.8%, P = .385). Overall CDR was significantly higher for 3D-GSB compared to TGSB (55.6% vs 39.9%, P = .002). 3D-GSB detected significantly more non-significant PCa than TGSB (22.2% vs 11.1%, P = .004). In patients with PCa, the number of cancer-positive SB cores was significantly higher by TGSB (42% vs 25%, P < .001). - Conclusion - 3D-GSB was associated with a higher CDR than TGSB. However, no significant difference was shown in detection of csPCa between both techniques. Therefore, currently, 3D-GSB does not appear to add value to conventional TGSB. |
DOI: | doi:10.1016/j.urology.2023.03.027 |
URL: | Bitte beachten Sie: Dies ist ein Bibliographieeintrag. Ein Volltextzugriff für Mitglieder der Universität besteht hier nur, falls für die entsprechende Zeitschrift/den entsprechenden Sammelband ein Abonnement besteht oder es sich um einen OpenAccess-Titel handelt.
Volltext: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2023.03.027 |
| Volltext: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009042952300287X |
| DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2023.03.027 |
Datenträger: | Online-Ressource |
Sprache: | eng |
K10plus-PPN: | 1870662628 |
Verknüpfungen: | → Zeitschrift |
¬A¬ matched-pair analysis comparing systematic prostate biopsy by conventional transrectal ultrasound-guidance versus software-based predefined 3D-guidance / Derigs, Fabian [VerfasserIn]; July 2023 (Online-Ressource)