Initial Experience of Transperineal Biopsy After Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Korea; Comparison With Transrectal Biopsy
10.22465/kjuo.2018.16.3.110
- Author:
Sung Goo YOON
1
;
Hyun Jung JIN
;
Jong Hyun TAE
;
Tae Il NO
;
Jae Yoon KIM
;
Jong Hyun PYUN
;
Ji Sung SHIM
;
Sung Gu KANG
;
Jun CHEON
;
Jeong Gu LEE
;
Je Jong KIM
;
Deuk Jae SUNG
;
Kwan Hyi LEE
;
Seok Ho KANG
Author Information
1. Department of Urology, Korea University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. mdksh@korea.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Prostate cancer;
Transperineal prostate biopsy;
MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy;
PI-RADS score
- MeSH:
Biopsy;
Classification;
Digital Rectal Examination;
Humans;
Information Systems;
Intensive Care Units;
Korea;
Magnetic Resonance Imaging;
Methods;
Prostate;
Prostate-Specific Antigen;
Prostatic Neoplasms;
Retrospective Studies;
Seoul
- From:Korean Journal of Urological Oncology
2018;16(3):110-118
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to confirm the detection rate of transperineal biopsy after multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and compared it to that of transrectal biopsy. We also examined the role of mpMRI and the rate of complications for each method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a retrospective study, we analyzed 147 patients who underwent mpMRI before prostate biopsy because of elevated serum prostate-specific antigen and/or abnormal digital rectal examination findings at Korea University Hospital, Seoul, Korea from March 2017 to April 2018. Regions on the mpMRI that were suggestive of prostate cancer were categorized according to the Prostate Imaging–Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS v2). For transperineal biopsy, a 20-core saturation biopsy was performed by MRI-TRUS cognitive or fusion techniques and a 12-core biopsy was performed in transrectal biopsy. RESULTS: Sixty-three and 84 patients were enrolled in transperineal group and transrectal group, respectively. The overall detection rate of prostate cancer in transperineal group was 27% higher than that in transrectal group. Classification according to PI-RADS score revealed a significant increase in detection rate in all patients, as the PI-RADS score increased. Frequency of complications using the Clavien-Dindo classifications revealed no significant differences in the total complications rate, but two patients in transrectal group received intensive care unit care due to urosepsis. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirmed that transperineal biopsy is superior to transrectal biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer. From the complication point of view, this study confirmed that there were fewer severe complications in transperineal biopsy.
