经会阴认知融合靶向穿刺与软件融合靶向穿刺在前列腺癌再活检中的比较
Comparison of Perineal Cognitive Fusion Targeted Puncture and Software Fusion Targeted Puncture in Prostate Cancer Rebiopsy
摘要: 目的:比较经会阴认知融合靶向穿刺(COG-TB)与软件融合靶向穿刺(FUS-TB)对初次活检阴性且前列腺特异性抗原持续升高患者的应用价值。方法:回顾性收集2020年1月至2022年6月期间于青岛大学附属烟台毓璜顶医院行经会阴靶向穿刺的179例患者的临床资料。患者均为二次穿刺,初次活检穿刺阴性,术后复查两次前列腺特异性抗原均 ≥ 4 ng/ml,患者均行多参数磁共振(mpMRI)检查,前列腺影像报告和数据系统2.0版(PI-RADS v2.0)评分 ≥ 3分。按照患者所选取的靶向穿刺方法分为认知融合靶向穿刺组(COG-TB)及软件融合靶向穿刺组(FUS-TB),两组患者行靶向穿刺后均行常规系统性穿刺活检(TRUS-SB),比较两组检出前列腺癌的阳性率。结果:COG-TB组纳入113例患者,FUS-TB组纳入66例患者。两组患者的年龄(68.46 ± 8.98岁和67.23 ± 6.97岁)、PSA [9.15 (6.33, 12.62)和9.37 (6.41, 13.98) ng/ml]、前列腺体积[40.55 (26.64, 52.41) ml和41.94 (29.03, 50.62) ml]、PSAD [0.24 (0.16, 0.35) ng/ml2和0.22 (0.16, 0.36) ng/ml2]的差异均无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。COG-TB组和FUS-TB组的前列腺癌检出率为72.57%和77.27%,P = 0.80,有临床意义前列腺癌检出率为62.83%和65.15%,P = 0.71。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,COG-TB组有13例(16.88%)患者术后Gleason评分升级,FUS-TB组有5例(10.64%),差异无统计学意义(P = 0.78)。结论:对于前列腺初次穿刺活检阴性且PSA持续升高的患者,COG-TB及FUS-TB在PCa、csPCa的检出率及RP术后病理升级率方面差异均无统计学意义。mpMRI引导下的靶向穿刺是临床有效的检查手段。
Abstract: Objective: To compare the application value of transperineal cognitive fusion targeted biopsy (COG-TB) and software fusion targeted biopsy (FUS-TB) in patients with negative initial biopsy and persistent elevated prostate specific antigen. Methods: Clinical data of 179 patients who underwent targeted perineal biopsy in Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital Affiliated to Qingdao University from Jan-uary 2020 to June 2022 were retrospectively collected. All patients underwent secondary puncture, and the initial biopsy puncture was negative. Prostate specific antigen was ≥ 4 ng/ml in two post-operative reexaminations. All patients underwent multi-parameter magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) examination, and prostate imaging Report and Data System 2.0 (PI-RADS v2.0) score ≥ 3 points. According to the targeted puncture methods selected by the patients, they were divided into cognitive fusion targeted puncture group (COG-TB) and software fusion targeted puncture group (FUS-TB). Patients in both groups underwent conventional systematic puncture biopsy (TRUS-SB) after targeted puncture, and the positive rates of prostate cancer detected in the two groups were compared. Results: 113 patients were included in the COG-TB group and 66 in the FUS-TB group. Age (68.46 ± 8.98 years and 67.23 ± 6.97 years), PSA (9.15 (6.33, 12.62) and 9.37 (6.41, 13.98) ng/ml), and prostate volume (40.55 (26.64, 52.41) ml) in both groups and 41.94 (29.03, 50.62) ml], PSAD [0.24 (0.16, 0.35) ng/ml2 and 0.22 (0.16, 0.36) ng/ml2] were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The detection rates of prostate cancer in the COG-TB and FUS-TB groups were 72.57% and 77.27%, P = 0.80, and the detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer were 62.83% and 65.15%, P = 0.71. For the patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP), with radical prostatec-tomy specimens as the gold standard, 13 patients (16.88%) in the COG-TB group had improved Gleason scores, while 5 patients (10.64%) in the FUS-TB group had no statistically significant dif-ference (P = 0.78). Conclusion: For patients with negative initial prostatic biopsy and continuous PSA elevation, there was no statistical significance in the detection rate of PCa and csPCa and the rate of postoperative pathological upgrading of RP. Targeted puncture guided by mpMRI is an effec-tive means of clinical examination.
文章引用:王迪, 刘宏全, 吴吉涛. 经会阴认知融合靶向穿刺与软件融合靶向穿刺在前列腺癌再活检中的比较[J]. 临床医学进展, 2023, 13(4): 5479-5485. https://doi.org/10.12677/ACM.2023.134775

参考文献

[1] Sung, H., Ferlay, J., Siegel, R.L., et al. (2021) Global Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Inci-dence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 71, 209-249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[2] Santis, D., Gillessen, S., Grummet, J., et al. (2021) EAU-EANM-ESTRO ESUR ISUP SIOG-Guidelines-on-Prostate- Cancer-2021.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350621452_EAU-EANM-ESTRO_ESUR_ISUP_SIOG-Guidelines-on-Prostate-Cancer-2021
[3] Welch, H.G., Fisher, E.S., Gottlieb, D.J. and Barry, M.J. (2007) Detection of Prostate Cancer via Biopsy in the Medicare-SEER Population During the PSA Era. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 99, 1395-1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[4] Rosenkrantz, A.B., Verma, S., Choyke, P., et al. (2016) Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy in Patients with a Prior Negative Biopsy: A Consensus Statement by AUA and SAR. Journal of Urology, 196, 1613-1618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[5] Kinnaird, A., Sharma, V., Chuang, R., et al. (2020) Risk of Prostate Cancer after a Negative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guided Biopsy. Journal of Urology, 204, 1180-1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[6] 黄尚, 毕学成, 李腾, 等. 认知融合及影像融合在前列腺穿刺活检中的应用[J]. 临床泌尿外科杂志, 2020, 35(7): 557-561.
[7] Ahdoot, M., Wilbur, A.R., Reese, S.E., et al. (2020) MRI-Targeted, Systematic, and Combined Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis. New England Journal of Medi-cine, 382, 917-928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[8] Hoeks, C.M., Schouten, M.G., Bomers, J.G., et al. (2012) Three-Tesla Magnetic Resonance-Guided Prostate Biopsy in Men with Increased Prostate-Specific Antigen and Repeated, Negative, Random, Systematic, Transrectal Ultrasound Biopsies: Detection of Clinically Significant Pros-tate Cancers. European Urology, 62, 902-909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[9] Norris, J.M., Kinnaird, A., Margolis, D.J., et al. (2020) Devel-opments in MRI-Targeted Prostate Biopsy. Current Opinion in Urology, 30, 1-8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[10] Sonn, G.A., Chang, E., Natarajan, S., et al. (2014) Value of Targeted Prostate Biopsy Using Magnetic Resonance-Ultrasound Fusion in Men with Prior Negative Biopsy and Ele-vated Prostate-Specific Antigen. European Urology, 65, 809-815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[11] Oberlin, D.T., Casalino, D.D., Miller, F.H., et al. (2016) Diag-nostic Value of Guided Biopsies: Fusion and Cognitive-Registration Magnetic Resonance Imaging versus Conventional Ultrasound Biopsy of the Prostate. Urology, 92, 75-79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[12] Liss, M.A., Kim, W., Moskowitz, D. and Szabo, R.J. (2015) Comparative Effectiveness of Targeted vs Empirical Antibiotic Prophylaxis to Prevent Sepsis from Transrectal Prostate Biopsy: A Retrospective Analysis. Journal of Urology, 194, 397-402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[13] Kaufmann, S., Russo, G.I., Thaiss, W., et al. (2018) Cog-nitive versus Software-Assisted Registration: Development of a New Nomogram Predicting Prostate Cancer at MRI-Targeted Biopsies. Clinical Genitourinary Cancer, 16, e953-e960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[14] Wysock, J.S., Rosenkrantz, A.B., Huang, W.C., et al. (2014) A Prospective, Blinded Comparison of Magnetic Resonance (MR) Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion and Visual Estimation in the Performance of MR-targeted Prostate Biopsy: The PROFUS Trial. European Urology, 66, 343-351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[15] 中华医学会泌尿外科学分会, 中国前列腺癌研究协作组. 前列腺穿刺中国专家共识(2022年版) [J]. 中华泌尿外科杂志, 2022, 43(11): 801-806.
[16] Puech, P., Rouvière, O., Renard-Penna, R., et al. (2013) Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Multiparametric MR-Targeted Biopsy with Cognitive and Transrectal US-MR Fusion Guidance versus Systematic Biopsy—Prospective Multicenter Study. Radiology, 268, 461-469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[17] Kaufmann, S., Russo, G.I., Bamberg, F., et al. (2018) Prostate Cancer Detection in Patients with Prior Negative Biopsy Undergoing Cognitive-, Robotic- or IN-Bore MRI Target Biopsy. World Journal of Urology, 36, 761-768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[18] Yamada, Y., Ukimura, O., Kaneko, M., et al. (2021) Moving Away from Systematic Biopsies: Image-Guided Prostate Biopsy (In-Bore Biopsy, Cognitive Fusion Biopsy, MRUS Fu-sion Biopsy)—Literature Review. World Journal of Urology, 39, 677-686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[19] 承逸飞, 梁玲辉, 祁峰, 等. 基于双参数磁共振的前列腺经会阴认知融合与软件融合靶向活检对前列腺癌检出率的比较[J]. 中华泌尿外科杂志, 2020, 41(9): 661-666.