New TRUS Techniques and Imaging Features of PI-RADS 4 or 5: Influence on Tumor Targeting

PurposeTo determine if the new transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) techniques and imaging features contribute to targeting Prostate Imaging and Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 4 or 5.Materials and MethodsBetween December 2018 and February 2020, 115 men underwent cognitive biopsy by radiologist A, who...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Amy Inji Chang, Byung Kwan Park
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-06-01
Series:Frontiers in Oncology
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fonc.2021.608409/full
id doaj-ccfeb65edf5f49698261637a44cce534
record_format Article
spelling doaj-ccfeb65edf5f49698261637a44cce5342021-06-09T06:44:11ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Oncology2234-943X2021-06-011110.3389/fonc.2021.608409608409New TRUS Techniques and Imaging Features of PI-RADS 4 or 5: Influence on Tumor TargetingAmy Inji ChangByung Kwan ParkPurposeTo determine if the new transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) techniques and imaging features contribute to targeting Prostate Imaging and Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 4 or 5.Materials and MethodsBetween December 2018 and February 2020, 115 men underwent cognitive biopsy by radiologist A, who was familiar with the new TRUS findings and biopsy techniques. During the same period, 179 men underwent magnetic resonance imaging–TRUS image fusion or cognitive biopsy by radiologist B, who was unfamiliar with the new biopsy techniques. Prior to biopsy, both radiologists knew MRI findings such as the location, size, and shape of PI-RADS 4 or 5. We recorded how many target biopsies were performed without systematic biopsy and how many of these detected higher Gleason score (GS) than those detected by systematic biopsy. The numbers of biopsy cores were also obtained. Fisher Exact or Mann–Whitney test was used for statistical analysis.ResultsFor PI-RADS 4, target biopsy alone was performed in 0% (0/84) by radiologist A and 0.8% (1/127) by radiologist B (p>0.9999). Target biopsy yielded higher GSs in 57.7% (30/52) by radiologist A and 29.5% (23/78) by radiologist B (p = 0.0019). For PI-RADS 5, target biopsy alone was performed in 29.0% (9/31) by radiologist A and 1.9% (1/52) by radiologist B (p = 0.0004). Target biopsy yielded higher GSs in 50.0% (14/28) by radiologist A and 18.2% (8/44) by radiologist B (p = 0.0079). Radiologist A sampled fewer biopsy cores than radiologist B (p = 0.0008 and 0.0023 for PI-RADS 4 and 5), respectively.ConclusionsPI-RADS 4 or 5 can be more precisely targeted if the new TRUS biopsy techniques are applied.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fonc.2021.608409/fullprostate adenocarcinomatransrectal ultrasoundcognitive biopsyfusion biopsymagnetic resonance imaging
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Amy Inji Chang
Byung Kwan Park
spellingShingle Amy Inji Chang
Byung Kwan Park
New TRUS Techniques and Imaging Features of PI-RADS 4 or 5: Influence on Tumor Targeting
Frontiers in Oncology
prostate adenocarcinoma
transrectal ultrasound
cognitive biopsy
fusion biopsy
magnetic resonance imaging
author_facet Amy Inji Chang
Byung Kwan Park
author_sort Amy Inji Chang
title New TRUS Techniques and Imaging Features of PI-RADS 4 or 5: Influence on Tumor Targeting
title_short New TRUS Techniques and Imaging Features of PI-RADS 4 or 5: Influence on Tumor Targeting
title_full New TRUS Techniques and Imaging Features of PI-RADS 4 or 5: Influence on Tumor Targeting
title_fullStr New TRUS Techniques and Imaging Features of PI-RADS 4 or 5: Influence on Tumor Targeting
title_full_unstemmed New TRUS Techniques and Imaging Features of PI-RADS 4 or 5: Influence on Tumor Targeting
title_sort new trus techniques and imaging features of pi-rads 4 or 5: influence on tumor targeting
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
series Frontiers in Oncology
issn 2234-943X
publishDate 2021-06-01
description PurposeTo determine if the new transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) techniques and imaging features contribute to targeting Prostate Imaging and Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 4 or 5.Materials and MethodsBetween December 2018 and February 2020, 115 men underwent cognitive biopsy by radiologist A, who was familiar with the new TRUS findings and biopsy techniques. During the same period, 179 men underwent magnetic resonance imaging–TRUS image fusion or cognitive biopsy by radiologist B, who was unfamiliar with the new biopsy techniques. Prior to biopsy, both radiologists knew MRI findings such as the location, size, and shape of PI-RADS 4 or 5. We recorded how many target biopsies were performed without systematic biopsy and how many of these detected higher Gleason score (GS) than those detected by systematic biopsy. The numbers of biopsy cores were also obtained. Fisher Exact or Mann–Whitney test was used for statistical analysis.ResultsFor PI-RADS 4, target biopsy alone was performed in 0% (0/84) by radiologist A and 0.8% (1/127) by radiologist B (p>0.9999). Target biopsy yielded higher GSs in 57.7% (30/52) by radiologist A and 29.5% (23/78) by radiologist B (p = 0.0019). For PI-RADS 5, target biopsy alone was performed in 29.0% (9/31) by radiologist A and 1.9% (1/52) by radiologist B (p = 0.0004). Target biopsy yielded higher GSs in 50.0% (14/28) by radiologist A and 18.2% (8/44) by radiologist B (p = 0.0079). Radiologist A sampled fewer biopsy cores than radiologist B (p = 0.0008 and 0.0023 for PI-RADS 4 and 5), respectively.ConclusionsPI-RADS 4 or 5 can be more precisely targeted if the new TRUS biopsy techniques are applied.
topic prostate adenocarcinoma
transrectal ultrasound
cognitive biopsy
fusion biopsy
magnetic resonance imaging
url https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fonc.2021.608409/full
work_keys_str_mv AT amyinjichang newtrustechniquesandimagingfeaturesofpirads4or5influenceontumortargeting
AT byungkwanpark newtrustechniquesandimagingfeaturesofpirads4or5influenceontumortargeting
_version_ 1721388288220069888