A matched-pair analysis comparing systematic prostate biopsy by conventional transrectal ultrasound-guidance versus software-based predefined 3D-guidance

• Verfasst von: Derigs, Fabian [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Kowalewski, Karl-Friedrich [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Hartung, Friedrich [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Waldbillig, Frank [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Neuberger, Manuel [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Hardenberg, Jost von [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: 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
• DOI: doi:10.1016/j.urology.2023.03.027
• Datenträger: Online-Ressource
• Sprache: eng
• K10plus-PPN: 1870662628

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.