Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy‐naïve men: direct comparison of systematic biopsy, multiparametric MRI‐ and contrast‐ultrasound‐dispersion imaging‐targeted biopsy
Objectives To compare and evaluate a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)‐targeted biopsy (TBx) strategy, contrast‐ultrasound‐dispersion imaging (CUDI)‐TBx strategy and systematic biopsy (SBx) strategy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in biopsy‐naïve...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | BJU international 2020-10, Vol.126 (4), p.481-493 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 493 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 481 |
| container_title | BJU international |
| container_volume | 126 |
| creator | Mannaerts, Christophe K. Engelbrecht, Marc R.W. Postema, Arnoud W. Kollenburg, Rob A.A. Hoeks, Caroline M.A. Savci‐Heijink, Cemile Dilara Van Sloun, Ruud J.G. Wildeboer, Rogier R. De Reijke, Theo M. Mischi, Massimo Wijkstra, Hessel |
| description | Objectives
To compare and evaluate a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)‐targeted biopsy (TBx) strategy, contrast‐ultrasound‐dispersion imaging (CUDI)‐TBx strategy and systematic biopsy (SBx) strategy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in biopsy‐naïve men.
Patients and Methods
A prospective, single‐centre paired diagnostic study included 150 biopsy‐naïve men, from November 2015 to November 2018. All men underwent pre‐biopsy mpMRI and CUDI followed by a 12‐core SBx taken by an operator blinded from the imaging results. Men with suspicious lesions on mpMRI and/or CUDI also underwent MRI‐TRUS fusion‐TBx and/or cognitive CUDI‐TBx after SBx by a second operator. A non‐inferiority analysis of the mpMRI‐ and CUDI‐TBx strategies in comparison with SBx for International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group [GG] ≥2 PCa in any core with a non‐inferiority margin of 1 percentage point was performed. Additional analyses for GG ≥2 PCa with cribriform growth pattern and/or intraductal carcinoma (CR/IDC), and GG ≥3 PCa were performed. Differences in detection rates were tested using McNemar’s test with adjusted Wald confidence intervals.
Results
After enrolment of 150 men, an interim analysis was performed. Both the mpMRI‐ and CUDI‐TBx strategies were inferior to SBx for GG ≥2 PCa detection and the study was stopped. SBx found significantly more GG ≥2 PCa: 39% (56/142), as compared with 29% (41/142) and 28% (40/142) for mpMRI‐TBx and CUDI‐TBx, respectively (P |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/bju.15093 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2393043674</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2393043674</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3883-562dd56476669573873abc069f2ba8f0010ded946eb12d39bf1c361c9855c4ee3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kU9u1TAQxiNERUthwQWQJTYg8Vo7dpyYHZQ_LSpCQlRiFzn25MlPiZPaTqvsOAI34RBd9hachHnklQUS3tjf6DefxvNl2RNGjxie42YzHbGCKn4vO2BCipVg9Nv9uzdVcj97GOOGUizI4kG2z3POCsbyg-z2LSQwyQ2eDC0xnfPO6K6bSXRr71oUPpExDDHpBASVgUCcJ40bxjj_-v7D65ufV0B68K-IdQG9iBn6UQcXF884xwS9Ts7sml6SfuqSQ0T3kALWP305QyeivcVen4KOCTVC-Bomb1FYF0cIcTun6_Xa-TUWkw5rHN_ujB9le63uIjze3YfZxft3X09OV-efP5ydvD5fGV5VfFXI3NpCilJKqYqSVyXXjaFStXmjqxa3RC1YJSQ0LLdcNS0zXDKjqqIwAoAfZs8XX9zL5QQx1b2LBrpOeximWOdccSq4LAWiz_5BN8MUPE5X50JUpVKMbqkXC2Vw0TFAW48BfxnmmtF6m3CNCdd_Ekb26c5xanqwf8m7SBE4XoBr18H8f6f6zceLxfI3QBm6tQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2448799104</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy‐naïve men: direct comparison of systematic biopsy, multiparametric MRI‐ and contrast‐ultrasound‐dispersion imaging‐targeted biopsy</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Mannaerts, Christophe K. ; Engelbrecht, Marc R.W. ; Postema, Arnoud W. ; Kollenburg, Rob A.A. ; Hoeks, Caroline M.A. ; Savci‐Heijink, Cemile Dilara ; Van Sloun, Ruud J.G. ; Wildeboer, Rogier R. ; De Reijke, Theo M. ; Mischi, Massimo ; Wijkstra, Hessel</creator><creatorcontrib>Mannaerts, Christophe K. ; Engelbrecht, Marc R.W. ; Postema, Arnoud W. ; Kollenburg, Rob A.A. ; Hoeks, Caroline M.A. ; Savci‐Heijink, Cemile Dilara ; Van Sloun, Ruud J.G. ; Wildeboer, Rogier R. ; De Reijke, Theo M. ; Mischi, Massimo ; Wijkstra, Hessel</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives
To compare and evaluate a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)‐targeted biopsy (TBx) strategy, contrast‐ultrasound‐dispersion imaging (CUDI)‐TBx strategy and systematic biopsy (SBx) strategy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in biopsy‐naïve men.
Patients and Methods
A prospective, single‐centre paired diagnostic study included 150 biopsy‐naïve men, from November 2015 to November 2018. All men underwent pre‐biopsy mpMRI and CUDI followed by a 12‐core SBx taken by an operator blinded from the imaging results. Men with suspicious lesions on mpMRI and/or CUDI also underwent MRI‐TRUS fusion‐TBx and/or cognitive CUDI‐TBx after SBx by a second operator. A non‐inferiority analysis of the mpMRI‐ and CUDI‐TBx strategies in comparison with SBx for International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group [GG] ≥2 PCa in any core with a non‐inferiority margin of 1 percentage point was performed. Additional analyses for GG ≥2 PCa with cribriform growth pattern and/or intraductal carcinoma (CR/IDC), and GG ≥3 PCa were performed. Differences in detection rates were tested using McNemar’s test with adjusted Wald confidence intervals.
Results
After enrolment of 150 men, an interim analysis was performed. Both the mpMRI‐ and CUDI‐TBx strategies were inferior to SBx for GG ≥2 PCa detection and the study was stopped. SBx found significantly more GG ≥2 PCa: 39% (56/142), as compared with 29% (41/142) and 28% (40/142) for mpMRI‐TBx and CUDI‐TBx, respectively (P < 0.05). SBx found significantly more GG = 1 PCa: 14% (20/142) compared to 1% (two of 142) and 3% (four of 142) with mpMRI‐TBx and CUDI‐TBx, respectively (P < 0.05). Detection of GG ≥2 PCa with CR/IDC and GG ≥3 PCa did not differ significantly between the strategies. The mpMRI‐ and CUDI‐TBx strategies were comparable in detection but the mpMRI‐TBx strategy had less false‐positive findings (18% vs 53%).
Conclusions
In our study in biopsy‐naïve men, the mpMRI‐ and CUDI‐TBx strategies had comparable PCa detection rates, but the mpMRI‐TBX strategy had the least false‐positive findings. Both strategies were inferior to SBx for the detection of GG ≥2 PCa, despite reduced detection of insignificant GG = 1 PCa. Both strategies did not significantly differ from SBx for the detection of GG ≥2 PCa with CR/IDC and GG ≥3 PCa.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1464-4096</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1464-410X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/bju.15093</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32315112</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Aged ; Biopsy ; Clinical significance ; Cognitive ability ; Contrast Media ; detection ; diagnosis ; Growth patterns ; Humans ; Image-Guided Biopsy ; imaging ; Magnetic resonance imaging ; Male ; Middle Aged ; MRI ; Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Neoplasm Grading ; Prospective Studies ; Prostate cancer ; prostatic neoplasms ; Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Ultrasonic imaging ; Ultrasonography ; Ultrasound</subject><ispartof>BJU international, 2020-10, Vol.126 (4), p.481-493</ispartof><rights>2020 The Authors BJU International © 2020 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2020 The Authors BJU International © 2020 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>BJUI © 2020 BJU International</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3883-562dd56476669573873abc069f2ba8f0010ded946eb12d39bf1c361c9855c4ee3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3883-562dd56476669573873abc069f2ba8f0010ded946eb12d39bf1c361c9855c4ee3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3824-5631 ; 0000-0003-2845-0495</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fbju.15093$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fbju.15093$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32315112$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mannaerts, Christophe K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Engelbrecht, Marc R.W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Postema, Arnoud W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kollenburg, Rob A.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoeks, Caroline M.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Savci‐Heijink, Cemile Dilara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Sloun, Ruud J.G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wildeboer, Rogier R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Reijke, Theo M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mischi, Massimo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wijkstra, Hessel</creatorcontrib><title>Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy‐naïve men: direct comparison of systematic biopsy, multiparametric MRI‐ and contrast‐ultrasound‐dispersion imaging‐targeted biopsy</title><title>BJU international</title><addtitle>BJU Int</addtitle><description>Objectives
To compare and evaluate a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)‐targeted biopsy (TBx) strategy, contrast‐ultrasound‐dispersion imaging (CUDI)‐TBx strategy and systematic biopsy (SBx) strategy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in biopsy‐naïve men.
Patients and Methods
A prospective, single‐centre paired diagnostic study included 150 biopsy‐naïve men, from November 2015 to November 2018. All men underwent pre‐biopsy mpMRI and CUDI followed by a 12‐core SBx taken by an operator blinded from the imaging results. Men with suspicious lesions on mpMRI and/or CUDI also underwent MRI‐TRUS fusion‐TBx and/or cognitive CUDI‐TBx after SBx by a second operator. A non‐inferiority analysis of the mpMRI‐ and CUDI‐TBx strategies in comparison with SBx for International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group [GG] ≥2 PCa in any core with a non‐inferiority margin of 1 percentage point was performed. Additional analyses for GG ≥2 PCa with cribriform growth pattern and/or intraductal carcinoma (CR/IDC), and GG ≥3 PCa were performed. Differences in detection rates were tested using McNemar’s test with adjusted Wald confidence intervals.
Results
After enrolment of 150 men, an interim analysis was performed. Both the mpMRI‐ and CUDI‐TBx strategies were inferior to SBx for GG ≥2 PCa detection and the study was stopped. SBx found significantly more GG ≥2 PCa: 39% (56/142), as compared with 29% (41/142) and 28% (40/142) for mpMRI‐TBx and CUDI‐TBx, respectively (P < 0.05). SBx found significantly more GG = 1 PCa: 14% (20/142) compared to 1% (two of 142) and 3% (four of 142) with mpMRI‐TBx and CUDI‐TBx, respectively (P < 0.05). Detection of GG ≥2 PCa with CR/IDC and GG ≥3 PCa did not differ significantly between the strategies. The mpMRI‐ and CUDI‐TBx strategies were comparable in detection but the mpMRI‐TBx strategy had less false‐positive findings (18% vs 53%).
Conclusions
In our study in biopsy‐naïve men, the mpMRI‐ and CUDI‐TBx strategies had comparable PCa detection rates, but the mpMRI‐TBX strategy had the least false‐positive findings. Both strategies were inferior to SBx for the detection of GG ≥2 PCa, despite reduced detection of insignificant GG = 1 PCa. Both strategies did not significantly differ from SBx for the detection of GG ≥2 PCa with CR/IDC and GG ≥3 PCa.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Clinical significance</subject><subject>Cognitive ability</subject><subject>Contrast Media</subject><subject>detection</subject><subject>diagnosis</subject><subject>Growth patterns</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Image-Guided Biopsy</subject><subject>imaging</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>MRI</subject><subject>Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging</subject><subject>Neoplasm Grading</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Prostate cancer</subject><subject>prostatic neoplasms</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Ultrasonic imaging</subject><subject>Ultrasonography</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><issn>1464-4096</issn><issn>1464-410X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kU9u1TAQxiNERUthwQWQJTYg8Vo7dpyYHZQ_LSpCQlRiFzn25MlPiZPaTqvsOAI34RBd9hachHnklQUS3tjf6DefxvNl2RNGjxie42YzHbGCKn4vO2BCipVg9Nv9uzdVcj97GOOGUizI4kG2z3POCsbyg-z2LSQwyQ2eDC0xnfPO6K6bSXRr71oUPpExDDHpBASVgUCcJ40bxjj_-v7D65ufV0B68K-IdQG9iBn6UQcXF884xwS9Ts7sml6SfuqSQ0T3kALWP305QyeivcVen4KOCTVC-Bomb1FYF0cIcTun6_Xa-TUWkw5rHN_ujB9le63uIjze3YfZxft3X09OV-efP5ydvD5fGV5VfFXI3NpCilJKqYqSVyXXjaFStXmjqxa3RC1YJSQ0LLdcNS0zXDKjqqIwAoAfZs8XX9zL5QQx1b2LBrpOeximWOdccSq4LAWiz_5BN8MUPE5X50JUpVKMbqkXC2Vw0TFAW48BfxnmmtF6m3CNCdd_Ekb26c5xanqwf8m7SBE4XoBr18H8f6f6zceLxfI3QBm6tQ</recordid><startdate>202010</startdate><enddate>202010</enddate><creator>Mannaerts, Christophe K.</creator><creator>Engelbrecht, Marc R.W.</creator><creator>Postema, Arnoud W.</creator><creator>Kollenburg, Rob A.A.</creator><creator>Hoeks, Caroline M.A.</creator><creator>Savci‐Heijink, Cemile Dilara</creator><creator>Van Sloun, Ruud J.G.</creator><creator>Wildeboer, Rogier R.</creator><creator>De Reijke, Theo M.</creator><creator>Mischi, Massimo</creator><creator>Wijkstra, Hessel</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3824-5631</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2845-0495</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202010</creationdate><title>Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy‐naïve men: direct comparison of systematic biopsy, multiparametric MRI‐ and contrast‐ultrasound‐dispersion imaging‐targeted biopsy</title><author>Mannaerts, Christophe K. ; Engelbrecht, Marc R.W. ; Postema, Arnoud W. ; Kollenburg, Rob A.A. ; Hoeks, Caroline M.A. ; Savci‐Heijink, Cemile Dilara ; Van Sloun, Ruud J.G. ; Wildeboer, Rogier R. ; De Reijke, Theo M. ; Mischi, Massimo ; Wijkstra, Hessel</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3883-562dd56476669573873abc069f2ba8f0010ded946eb12d39bf1c361c9855c4ee3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Clinical significance</topic><topic>Cognitive ability</topic><topic>Contrast Media</topic><topic>detection</topic><topic>diagnosis</topic><topic>Growth patterns</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Image-Guided Biopsy</topic><topic>imaging</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>MRI</topic><topic>Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging</topic><topic>Neoplasm Grading</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Prostate cancer</topic><topic>prostatic neoplasms</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Ultrasonic imaging</topic><topic>Ultrasonography</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mannaerts, Christophe K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Engelbrecht, Marc R.W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Postema, Arnoud W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kollenburg, Rob A.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoeks, Caroline M.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Savci‐Heijink, Cemile Dilara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Sloun, Ruud J.G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wildeboer, Rogier R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Reijke, Theo M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mischi, Massimo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wijkstra, Hessel</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>BJU international</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mannaerts, Christophe K.</au><au>Engelbrecht, Marc R.W.</au><au>Postema, Arnoud W.</au><au>Kollenburg, Rob A.A.</au><au>Hoeks, Caroline M.A.</au><au>Savci‐Heijink, Cemile Dilara</au><au>Van Sloun, Ruud J.G.</au><au>Wildeboer, Rogier R.</au><au>De Reijke, Theo M.</au><au>Mischi, Massimo</au><au>Wijkstra, Hessel</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy‐naïve men: direct comparison of systematic biopsy, multiparametric MRI‐ and contrast‐ultrasound‐dispersion imaging‐targeted biopsy</atitle><jtitle>BJU international</jtitle><addtitle>BJU Int</addtitle><date>2020-10</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>126</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>481</spage><epage>493</epage><pages>481-493</pages><issn>1464-4096</issn><eissn>1464-410X</eissn><abstract>Objectives
To compare and evaluate a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI)‐targeted biopsy (TBx) strategy, contrast‐ultrasound‐dispersion imaging (CUDI)‐TBx strategy and systematic biopsy (SBx) strategy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in biopsy‐naïve men.
Patients and Methods
A prospective, single‐centre paired diagnostic study included 150 biopsy‐naïve men, from November 2015 to November 2018. All men underwent pre‐biopsy mpMRI and CUDI followed by a 12‐core SBx taken by an operator blinded from the imaging results. Men with suspicious lesions on mpMRI and/or CUDI also underwent MRI‐TRUS fusion‐TBx and/or cognitive CUDI‐TBx after SBx by a second operator. A non‐inferiority analysis of the mpMRI‐ and CUDI‐TBx strategies in comparison with SBx for International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group [GG] ≥2 PCa in any core with a non‐inferiority margin of 1 percentage point was performed. Additional analyses for GG ≥2 PCa with cribriform growth pattern and/or intraductal carcinoma (CR/IDC), and GG ≥3 PCa were performed. Differences in detection rates were tested using McNemar’s test with adjusted Wald confidence intervals.
Results
After enrolment of 150 men, an interim analysis was performed. Both the mpMRI‐ and CUDI‐TBx strategies were inferior to SBx for GG ≥2 PCa detection and the study was stopped. SBx found significantly more GG ≥2 PCa: 39% (56/142), as compared with 29% (41/142) and 28% (40/142) for mpMRI‐TBx and CUDI‐TBx, respectively (P < 0.05). SBx found significantly more GG = 1 PCa: 14% (20/142) compared to 1% (two of 142) and 3% (four of 142) with mpMRI‐TBx and CUDI‐TBx, respectively (P < 0.05). Detection of GG ≥2 PCa with CR/IDC and GG ≥3 PCa did not differ significantly between the strategies. The mpMRI‐ and CUDI‐TBx strategies were comparable in detection but the mpMRI‐TBx strategy had less false‐positive findings (18% vs 53%).
Conclusions
In our study in biopsy‐naïve men, the mpMRI‐ and CUDI‐TBx strategies had comparable PCa detection rates, but the mpMRI‐TBX strategy had the least false‐positive findings. Both strategies were inferior to SBx for the detection of GG ≥2 PCa, despite reduced detection of insignificant GG = 1 PCa. Both strategies did not significantly differ from SBx for the detection of GG ≥2 PCa with CR/IDC and GG ≥3 PCa.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>32315112</pmid><doi>10.1111/bju.15093</doi><tpages>13</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3824-5631</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2845-0495</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1464-4096 |
| ispartof | BJU international, 2020-10, Vol.126 (4), p.481-493 |
| issn | 1464-4096 1464-410X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2393043674 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library |
| subjects | Aged Biopsy Clinical significance Cognitive ability Contrast Media detection diagnosis Growth patterns Humans Image-Guided Biopsy imaging Magnetic resonance imaging Male Middle Aged MRI Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Neoplasm Grading Prospective Studies Prostate cancer prostatic neoplasms Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology Sensitivity and Specificity Ultrasonic imaging Ultrasonography Ultrasound |
| title | Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy‐naïve men: direct comparison of systematic biopsy, multiparametric MRI‐ and contrast‐ultrasound‐dispersion imaging‐targeted biopsy |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T20%3A22%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Detection%20of%20clinically%20significant%20prostate%20cancer%20in%20biopsy%E2%80%90na%C3%AFve%20men:%20direct%20comparison%20of%20systematic%20biopsy,%20multiparametric%20MRI%E2%80%90%20and%20contrast%E2%80%90ultrasound%E2%80%90dispersion%20imaging%E2%80%90targeted%20biopsy&rft.jtitle=BJU%20international&rft.au=Mannaerts,%20Christophe%20K.&rft.date=2020-10&rft.volume=126&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=481&rft.epage=493&rft.pages=481-493&rft.issn=1464-4096&rft.eissn=1464-410X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/bju.15093&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2393043674%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2448799104&rft_id=info:pmid/32315112&rfr_iscdi=true |