认知融合及影像融合在前列腺穿刺活检中的应用

黄尚; 毕学成; 李腾; 陈汉忠; 蒲小勇; 刘久敏

doi:10.13201/j.issn.1001-1420.2020.07.010

认知融合及影像融合在前列腺穿刺活检中的应用

- 广东省人民医院泌尿外科广东省医学科学院(广州, 510080)
基金项目:
广东省医学科学技术研究基金项目(No:B2018208)

详细信息

通讯作者: 刘久敏,E-mail:jiumin8388@163.com

中图分类号: R737.25

收稿日期: 2019-08-20

Evaluation of cognitive fusion and image fusion in prostate biopsy: a retrospective cohort study

- Department of Urology, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, 510080, China

More Information

Corresponding author: LIU Jiumin, E-mail: jiumin8388@163.com

Received Date: 20 August 2019

摘要

摘要: 目的:探讨多参数磁共振(mpMRI)图像引导下,认知融合及影像融合的前列腺靶向穿刺活检术及传统系统性穿刺活检术对前列腺癌检出能力的对比。方法:回顾性收集2017年8月1日~2019年3月31日我院mpMRI提示前列腺癌的初次穿刺活检患者,按照所行的靶向穿刺方法分为认知融合组(COG组)及影像融合组(FUS组),两组分别行认知融合靶向穿刺(COG-TB)及影像融合靶向穿刺(FUS-TB)后,再行常规系统性穿刺活检(TRUS-SB)。对比两组组内与组间靶向穿刺及系统性穿刺的结果。对于行前列腺根治性切除术(RP)的患者,以根治标本作为金标准与两组穿刺结果进行对比。结果:COG组纳入78例患者,FUS组纳入24例患者,比较COG组、FUS组的靶向穿刺及系统性穿刺发现,COG组COG-TB vs.COG组TRUS-SB vs.FUS组FUS-TB vs.FUS组TRUS-SB的前列腺癌检出率(60.3%vs.61.5%vs.58.3%vs.62.5%,P=0.99),有临床意义前列腺癌检出率(55.1%vs.55.1%vs.58.3%vs.58.3%,P=0.97)、Gleason评分[(7.8±1.1) vs.(7.6±0.8) vs.(7.7±1.1) vs.(7.6±1.0),P=0.93]及ISUP分级[(3.5±1.2) vs.(3.4±1.3) vs.(3.5±1.0) vs.(3.3±1.3),P=0.97]比较差异均无统计学意义。以根治标本作为金标准,COG组COG-TB vs.TRUS-SB vs.RP的Gleason评分[(7.5±1.0) vs.(7.4±1.0) vs.(7.6±1.2),P=0.73]及ISUP分级[(3.1±1.1) vs.(3.1±1.3) vs.(3.4±1.4),P=0.66]比较差异无统计学意义,FUS组FUS-TB vs.TRUS-SB vs.RP的Gleason评分[(7.6±0.8) vs.(7.6±1.0) vs.(7.6±0.9),P=0.98]及ISUP分级[(3.5±1.0) vs.(3.4±1.2) vs.(3.6±0.9),P=0.92]比较差异亦无统计学意义。结论:在前列腺初次穿刺活检患者中,认知融合、影像融合及常规系统性穿刺对前列腺癌的检出率、有临床意义前列腺癌的检出率无明显差异,以根治标本作为金标准,靶向融合未明显低估前列腺癌的Gleason评分及ISUP分级。mpMRI影像引导下的靶向穿刺是临床有效、可行的穿刺方式。
- 前列腺癌 /
- 磁共振 /
- 穿刺活检
Abstract: Objective: Cognitive fusion and image fusion are two main methods of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging(mpMRI)-guided targeted prostate biopsy. A retrospective study is conducted to evaluate the efficacy of cognitive fusion, image fusion and systematic biopsy on detecting prostate cancer. Method: Patients who were mpMRI positive of prostate cancer without prior biopsy from Aug 1^st, 2017 to March 31^st, 2019 were enrolled in this study. Patients underwent cognitive fusion(COG-TB) with concurrent systematic biopsy(TRUS-SB) and image fusion(FUS-TB) with concurrent TRUS-SB were grouped into COG and FUS group respectively. Detection rate of prostate cancer, clinically significant prostate cancer, Gleason score and ISUP grade were studied. Data from patients underwent radical prostectomy(RP) were also analyzed and radical samples were used as gold standard. Result: Seventy-eight patients underwent COG-TB+TRUS-SB and were fitted into COG group. Twenty-four patients underwent FUS-TB+TRUS-SB and were fitted into FUS group. Detection rate of prostate cancer in COG-TB vs concurrent TRUS-SB vs. FUS-TB vs concurrent TRUS-SB was 60.3% vs. 61.5% vs. 58.3% vs. 62.5%, P=0.99. No significant difference was found. Detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer(55.1% vs. 55.1% vs. 58.3% vs. 58.3%, P=0.97), Gleason score [(7.8±1.1) vs.(7.6±0.8) vs.(7.7±1.1) vs.(7.6±1.0), P=0.93], ISUP grade [(3.5±1.2) vs.(3.4±1.3) vs.(3.5±1.0) vs.(3.3±1.3), P=0.97] were also comparable among biopsy methods stated above. In patients underwent RP, no significant differences were found in Gleason score of COG-TB vs. concurrent TRUS-SB vs. RP [(7.5±1.0) vs.(7.4±1.0) vs.(7.6±1.2), P=0.73] and in ISUP grade [(3.1±1.1) vs.(3.1±1.3) vs.(3.4±1.4), P=0.66]. Gleason score [(7.6±0.8) vs.(7.6±1.0) vs.(7.6±0.9), P=0.98] and ISUP grade [(3.5±1.0) vs.(3.4±1.2) vs.(3.6±0.9), P=0.92 ] of FUS-TB vs concurrent TRUS-SB vs RP were also comparable.Conclusion: No significant differences were found among COG-TB, FUS-TB and concurrent TRUS-SB in detection rate of prostate cancer, detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer, Gleason score and ISUP grade. No significant differences of Gleason score and ISUP grade were found among COG-TB, TRUS-SB and RP specimen or among FUS-TB, TRUS-SB and RP specimen. Our conclusion shows both COG-TB and FUS-TB are feasible in biopsy-naïve patients.
- prostate neoplasms /
- magnetic resonance imaging /
- biopsy

HTML全文

参考文献(15)

[1]	Smeenge M,Barentsz J,Cosgrove D,et al.Role of transrectal ultrasonography(TRUS)in focal therapy of prostate cancer:report from a Consensus Panel[J].BJU Int,2012,110(7):942-948.
[2]	Mannaerts CK,Wildeboer RR,Remmers S,et al.Multiparametric Ultrasound for Prostate Cancer Detection and Localization:Correlation of B-mode,Shear Wave Elastography and Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound with Radical Prostatectomy Specimens[J].J Urol,2019,202(6):1166-1173.
[3]	Bratan F,Niaf E,Melodelima C,et al.Influence of imaging and histological factors on prostate cancer detection and localisation on multip arametric MRI:a prospective study[J].Eur Radiol,2013,23(7):2019-2029.
[4]	Wegelin O,van Melick HHE,Hooft L,et al.Comparing Three Different Techniques for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsies:A Systematic Review of In-bore versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound fusion versus Cognitive Registration.Is There a Preferred Technique?[J].Eur Urol,2017,71(4):517-531.
[5]	Wegelin O,Exterkate L,van der Leest M,et al.The FUTURE Trial:A Multicenter Randomised Controlled Trial on Target Biopsy Techniques Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in Patients with Prior Negative Biopsies[J].Eur Urol,2019,75(4):582-590.
[6]	Borghesi M,Ahmed H,Nam R,et al.Complications After Systematic,Random,and Image-guided Prostate Biopsy[J].Eur Urol.2017,71(3):353-365.
[7]	Ehdaie B,Vertosick E,Spaliviero M,et al.The impact of repeat biopsies on infectious complications in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance[J].J Urol,2014,191(3):660-664.
[8]	Loeb S,Carter HB,Berndt SI,et al.Is repeat prostate biopsy associated with a greater risk of hospitalization?Data from SEER-Medicare[J].J Urol,2013,189(3):867-870.
[9]	Bratan F,Niaf E,Melodelima C,et al.Influence of imaging and histological factors on prostate cancer detection and localisation on multiparametric MRI:a prospective study[J].Eur Radiol,2013,23(7):2019-2029.
[10]	Elkhoury FF,Felker ER,Kwan L,et al.Comparison of Targeted vs Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Men Who Are Biopsy Naive:The Prospective Assessment of Image Registration in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer(PAIREDCAP)Study[J].JAMA Surg,2019,154(9):811-818.
[11]	Kasivisvanathan V,Rannikko AS,Borghi M,et al.MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis[J].N Engl J Med,2018,378(19):1767-1777.
[12]	Stabile A,Dell'Oglio P,Gandaglia G,et al.Not All Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsies Are Equal:The Impact of the Type of Approach and Operator Expertise on the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer[J].Eur Urol Oncol,2018,1(2):120-128.
[13]	Moreira P,Patel N,Wartenberg M,et al.Evaluation of robot-assisted MRI-guided prostate biopsy:needle path analysis during clinical trials[J].Phys Med Biol,2018,63(20):20NT02.
[14]	彭绪峰,罗文强,冯超,等.建立前列腺特异性抗原灰区患者重复穿刺阳性的数学模型[J].临床泌尿外科杂志,2018,33(2):137-140.
[15]	杨荷宇,张鹏飞.磁共振纳米造影剂在前列腺癌诊疗应用中的研究进展[J].临床泌尿外科杂志,2019,34(1):64-68.