Search

Introduction: The aim of this study is to compare performance of two biopsy approaches in patients with at least one previous negative prostate biopsy (PB): classical transrectal biopsy (ClTB) versus cognitive registration biopsy (COG-TB)., Material and Methods: A retrospective study of 205 patients with at least one negative PB. 144 (70.2%) patients underwent a prior mpMRI and 61 (29.8%) patients did not. Nodule classification was carried out according PI-RADS version 2. Peripheral zone (PZ) grouped pZa, pZpl and pZpm areas, transition zone (TZ) Tza, Tzp and Cz areas, and anterior zone (AZ) AS areas. COG-TB was conducted in patients with previous mpMRI (144); while in the remaining 61 (29.8%) patients a ClTB of PZ and TZ was performed. Statistical analysis was performed using Chi square and T-student tests for qualitative and quantitative variables, respectively. Multivariate analysis was carried out in order to identify predictive variables of prostate cancer., Results: Median patient age was 68 (IQR 62-72) years, median PSA was 8.3 (IQR 6.2-11.7) ng/ml and median previous biopsies was 1 (IQR 1-2). Digital rectal examinations (DRE) findings were normal in 169 (82.4%) patients and suspicious in 36 (17.6%) patients (cT2a-b in 34 patients and cT2c in 2). Median prostate volume was 48 (IQR 38-65) cc. Statistically significant differences in PSAD between both groups were found (P=.03). Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) showed hypoechoic nodules in 8 (13.1%) ClTB patients and in 62 (43.1%) COG-TB patients (P=.0001). The median number of biopsy cylinders per set of prostate biopsies was 10 (IQR 10-10) in ClTB group and 11 (IQR 9-13) in COG-TB group (P=.75). Cancer was diagnosed in 74 (36.1%) patients: of them, 10 (16.4%) were ClTB patients and 64 (44.4%) COG-TB (P=.0001). Tumors classification was as follow: ISUP-1: 34 (45.9%), ISUP-2: 21 (28.4%), ISUP-3: 9 (12.2%), ISUP-4: 7 (9.5%) and ISUP-5: 3 (4.1%). No significant statistical differences were found (P=.89). The median number of biopsy cylinders impaired per set of prostate biopsies was 1 (IQR 1-5) in ClTB group and 2 (IQR 1-4) in COG-TB group (P=.93). Regarding independent predictive variables for prostate cancer the results were: age (OR=12.05; P=.049), suspicious DRE (OR=2.64; P=.04), hypoechoic nodule (OR=2.20; P=.03) and mpMRI +COG-TB sequence (OR=3.49; P=.003)., Conclusions: In patients with at least one negative PB, mpMRI +COG-TB sequence improves 3.5 (OR=3.49) times the diagnosis prostate vs. ClTB., (Copyright © 2018 AEU. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Evaluation of the effectiveness of cognitive biopsy (CB) in patients with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer (PC), and at least one negative biopsy (TRB)., Material and Method: Retrospective study of 144 patients with at least one previous TRB and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The MRI nodules were classified based on PI-RADS v2 grouping pZa, pZpl and pZpm as the peripheral zone(PZ), Tza, Tzp and CZ as the transitional zone (TZ), and the AS zones as the anterior zone (AZ). A biopsy was indicated for nodules ≥PI-RADS 3. Uni and multivariate analysis was undertaken (logistic regression) to identify variables relating to a PI-RADS 3 tumour on biopsy., Results: The median age was 67 (IQR: 62-72) years, the median PSA was 8.2 (IQR: 6.2-12) ng/ml. A nodule was identified on MRI in the PZ in 97 (67.4%) cases, in the TZ in 29 (20.1%), and in the AZ in 41 (28.5%). PC was diagnosed on biopsy in 64 (44%) patients. The cancer rate in the PI-RADS 3 lesions was 17.5% (7/40), in the PI-RADS 4 47.3% (35/73), and in the PI-RADS 5 lesions it was 73.3% (22/29) (p=.0001). Multivariable analysis with variables that could influence the biopsy result in patients with PI-RADS 3: None (age, PSA, number of previous biopsies, rectal examination, PSAD, prostate volume or number of extracted cylinders) behaved as an independent tumour predictor., Conclusions: The diagnostic performance of CB in patients with at least one previous negative biopsy was 44%, increasing according to the PI-RADS grade, and low in PI-RADS 3. No clinical variable predictive of cancer was found in patients with PI-RADS 3., (Copyright © 2018 AEU. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)