Search

Purpose The goal of this study was to retrospectively compare systematic ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (US-PB) and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy (MRI-PB) in men undergoing primary or repeated biopsies. Methods A population of 2,200 patients with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level >4.0 ng/ dL and/or an abnormal rectal examination was divided into two groups. All patients underwent US-PB (n=1,021) or MRI-PB (n=1,179) between April 2015 and April 2019. Population demographics, including age, PSA level, digital rectal examination results, prostate volume, number of previous negative biopsies, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 (V2) score, and biopsy results, were acquired and compared with respect to these variables. Univariate regression analysis of the risk factors for a higher Gleason score (GS) was performed. Results The cancer detection rate (CDR) was 23.8% (243 of 1,021) in the US-PB group and 31.3% (399 of 1,179) in the MRI-PB group. Of those, 225 patients (22.0%) in the US-PB group and 374 patients (31.7%) in the MRI-PB group had clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). The patients with csPCa in the MRI-PB group included 10 (40%), 50 (62.5%), 184 (94.8%), and 32 (94.1%) patients with PI-RADS V2 scores of 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Of the patients with csPCa, 155 (91.7%) in the US-PB group were diagnosed on the basis of the primary biopsy, compared to 308 (94.4%) in the MRI-PB group. We found the PI-RADS V2 score to be the best predictor of a higher GS. Conclusion MRI-PB showed a high CDR for csPCa. MRI-PB could be a reasonable approach in patients with high PI-RADS V2 scores at primary biopsy.

Purpose: To assess the filter tilting and outcomes of the Celect and Denali inferior vena cava (IVC) filters by using a propensity score-matching analysis. Materials and methods: From January 2009 to November 2017, 181 Celect and 58 Denali filters were inserted in our institution. To assess filter tilt, filter tip abutment or penetration of the IVC wall, and retrieval outcome, independent variables, including age, sex, IVC long diameter, IVC angulation, and proximity of the filter to renal vein insertion, were entered in the propensity model. Comparative analyses were performed before and after propensity score-matching analysis. Results: Thirty-one patients were enrolled in each group for the final propensity score-matching analysis. The mean filter indwelling time was not significantly different between the groups (26 ± 22 days in Celect and 27 ± 23 days in Denali). After propensity score adjustment, the mean degree of filter tilt was higher in the Celect group (9.5° ± 7.4° vs 5.6° ± 6.7°). Filter tip abutment or penetration of the IVC wall was more common in the Celect group (39% [12/31, abutment: 12, penetration: 0] vs 13% [4/31, abutment: 3, penetration: 1]). The retrieval outcomes were not significantly different before and after propensity score adjustment in both filters. Conclusion: The Denali IVC filter showed less tilt and low rate of filter tip abutment to the IVC wall after propensity score-matching analysis. The retrieval rate was not significantly different in the short-term filter indwelling setting. More large-scale, long-term follow-up studies are needed to verify these results. Keywords: Inferior vena cava filter, Propensity score, Filter tilt, Retrieval rate, Denali filter