经直肠与经会阴途径穿刺活检诊断前列腺癌的对比分析

目的比较经直肠途径与经会阴途径穿刺活检对前列腺癌(PCa)的检出率。方法回顾性收集128例首次确诊的PCa患者,根据活检途径不同,分为经直肠途径组62例和经会阴途径组66例,比较2种途径诊断不同总前列腺特异性抗原(TPSA)水平PCa及临床意义前列腺癌(CsPCa)检出率的差异。对其中104例(经直肠途径组42例,经会阴途径组62例)在常规超声检查基础上行CEUS,于83例(经直肠途径组28例,经会阴途径组55例)检出阳性病灶后行靶向穿刺,比较2组系统穿刺及靶向穿刺PCa、CsPCa的检出率。结果经直肠途径组PCa检出率为35.48%(22/62),CsPCa检出率为25.81%(16/62);经会阴途径组PCa检出率为42.42%(28/66),CsPCa检出率为28.79%(19/66),差异均无统计学意义(P=0.471、0.676);2组对不同TPSA水平PCa及CsPCa的检出率差异均无统计学意义(P均0.05)。经直肠途径组与经会阴途径组在系统穿刺中PCa检出率[35.48%(22/62) vs 40.91%(27/66);P=0.587]、阳性针数/总针数[14.25%(106/744) vs 14.52%(115/792);P=0.879]、CsPCa检出率[25.81%(16/62) vs 28.79%(19/66);P=0.676]差异均无统计学意义;靶向穿刺活检PCa检出率[35.71%(10/28) vs 14.55%(8/55);P=0.002]、阳性针数/总针数[30.77%(24/78) vs 6.76%(10/148);P0.001]差异有统计学意义。结论超声引导下前列腺穿刺活检经直肠途径与经会阴途径对PCa及CsPCa检出率无差异。CEUS可引导前列腺靶向穿刺活检,穿刺操作时选择与CEUS相同的患者体位及解剖断面可提高PCa检出率。     

经直肠与经会阴途径前列腺穿刺对临床显著性和非显著性前列腺癌检出率的前瞻性随机对照试验

目的:探讨经直肠(TRUSB)途径与经会阴(TPB)途径前列腺穿刺对临床显著性前列腺癌(csPCa)和临床非显著性前列腺癌(insPCa)检出率的比较。方法:从2022年1月至2023年1月进行了一项前瞻性、随机的临床研究,纳入前列腺穿刺患者279例,其中TRUSB组135例,TPB组144例,比较两种穿刺途径对csPCa和insPCa的检出率。结果:TPB组前列腺癌(PCa)的检出率高于TRUSB组(37.50%vs 28.15%),差异有统计学意义(P=0.026)。TRUSB组检出6例(4.45%)insPCa和32例(23.70%)csPCa, TPB组检出10例(6.94%)insPCa和44例(30.56%)csPCa,两组对insPCa和csPCa检出率之间比较未见统计学差异(P>0.05)。不同年龄、PSA浓度和前列腺体积之间csPCa的检出率TRUSB组和TPB组无统计学差异(P>0.05)。TRUSB组和TPB组穿刺针数阳性率分别为(12.48±2.39)%和(16.44±2.86)%,差异未见统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组的尿潴留、尿道感染、血...     

直肠超声引导下经直肠与经会阴前列腺穿刺活检术的临床分析

目的:评估在直肠超声引导下经直肠与经会阴2种途径行前列腺穿刺活检术在前列腺癌(PCa)检出率以及围手术期并发症等方面的差异。方法:回顾性分析2014年10月～2017年10月我院因PCa待排就诊并符合纳入标准的255例患者的临床资料,所有患者符合前列腺穿刺活检指征。本研究分为两组,2014年10月～2016年5月130例患者接受经直肠前列腺穿刺活检术(经直肠组),2016年6月～2017年10月125例患者接受经会阴前列腺穿刺活检术(经会阴组)。所有患者首次穿刺活检均为系统性穿刺12针,本研究排除了穿刺不同针数的病例以减少偏差,综合分析2种穿刺活检方式的各种指标,包括患者年龄、总PSA(tPSA)、游离PSA(fPSA)、DRE/TRUS检查结果、PCa检出率以及并发症等围手术期各项指标。结果:255例PCa待排患者中,经过病理结果确认,经直肠组诊断为PCa的患者为43.85%(57/130),经会阴组诊断为PCa的患者为50.40%(63/125),两组比较差异无统计学意义。分层分析发现,经会阴组Gleason评分≥7分PCa检出率明显高于经直肠组,在PSA4ng/ml、f/t≥0.15、TRUS检查阴性的患者中,经会阴组的PCa检出率明显高于经直肠组,而在PSA≥4ng/ml、f/t0.15、TRUS检查阳性的患者中经直肠组明显高于经会阴组;在DRE异常的患者中,经会阴组的PCa检出率明显高于经直肠组。经直肠组手术时间为(10.15±3.06)min,经会阴组手术时间为(11.27±0.15)min,两组比较差异无统计学意义;经直肠组和经会阴组术后患者出现肉眼血尿的比例分别为6.92%(9/130)和19.20%(24/125),经直肠组和经会阴组出现尿潴留的比例分别为3.85%(5/130)和17.60%(22/125),两组比较差异均有统计学意义(P0.05);经直肠组和经会阴组直肠出血发生率分别为24.62%(32/130)和0,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05);经直肠组和经会阴组术后感染发生率分别为14.62%(17/130)和1.60%(2/125),两组比较差异有统计学意义(P0.05);经直肠组和经会阴组视觉模拟评分(VAS)分别为(1.17±0.19)分和(2.07±1.08)分,两组比较差异无统计学意义。结论:在经直肠超声引导下不论是经直肠前列腺穿刺活检术还是经会阴前列腺穿刺活检术,在临床上都是安全可行的。经会阴前列腺穿刺活检术在低度可疑PCa检出率方面具有更多优势,具有术后并发症更少等优点,在临床中值得进一步推广。     

超声引导下经直肠与经会阴途径前列腺穿刺活检术的比较

目的比较超声引导下经直肠与经会阴途径前列腺穿刺活检术在前列腺癌诊断中的效果。方法我院2015年12月~2018年12月超声引导下前列腺穿刺319例,其中经直肠162例(经直肠组),经会阴157例(经会阴组),比较2种穿刺活检方法阳性率、并发症发生率。结果经直肠与经会阴途径穿刺阳性率分别为31.5%(51/162)、35.7%(56/157),差异无统计学意义(χ^2=0.765,P=0.382)。2组穿刺后血尿、尿潴留、血管迷走神经反射发生率均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。经直肠组血便发生率14.2%(23/162),明显高于经会阴组1.9%(3/157)(χ^2=16.078,P=0.000);发热发生率9.9%(16/162),明显高于经会阴组2.5%(4/157)(χ^2=7.287,P=0.007);疼痛发生率3.7%(6/162),明显低于经会阴组10.2%(16/157)(χ^2=5.226,P=0.022)。结论直肠超声引导下经直肠与经会阴前列腺穿刺均为检测前列腺癌的有效途径,2种穿刺方法的阳性率相近,经会阴途径血便、发热发生率明显低于经直肠途径,疼痛发生率明显高于经直肠途径,应根据患者具体病情选择合理的穿刺方式。     

CEUS+TRTE联合应用于经会阴前列腺穿刺术的诊断价值分析

目的探究超声造影(CEUS)+经直肠实时组织超声弹性成像(TRTE)联合用于经会阴前列腺穿刺术的诊断价值。方法回顾性分析2016年3月至2018年7月本院收治的92例疑似前例腺癌(PCa)患者的诊疗情况。按照检查方式的不同,分为观察组和对照组,对照组行经会阴前列腺8点盲法穿刺活检;观察组行CEUS+TRTE后,对影像学检查发现的可疑病灶进行靶向穿刺。对两组患者的穿刺活检情况以及两种穿刺活检方式在诊断PCa上的诊断情况进行对比性分析。结果观察组患者的PCa检出率、单针检出率分别为60.87%、65.03%,明显高于对照组(分别为39.13%、16.44%),其阳性病例平均穿刺点数明显低于对照组,差异比较有统计学意义(P0.05)。观察组患者的敏感度、特异度、准确率以及阳性预测值、阴性预测值分别为90.32%、93.33%、91.30%、96.55%、82.35%,均明显高于对照组(分别为60.00%、62.50%、60.87%、75.00%、45.45%),差异比较有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 CEUS+TRTE联合应用于经会阴前列腺穿刺术,能够更加有效、精确地发现靶目标区,根据检测结果进行靶向穿刺,能够显著减少前列腺穿刺针数,使Pca的检出率得到显著提升。     

经会阴前列腺穿刺与经直肠前列腺穿刺活检在前列腺癌诊断的初探

目的 对比经会阴与经直肠前列腺穿刺活检在前列腺癌诊断中的阳性率及并发症。方法 回顾分析2017年1月到2019年12月行前列腺穿刺活检的病例,经直肠组187例,经会阴组68例。结果 经直肠组阳性穿刺率为34.7%,经会阴组阳性穿刺率为29.4%,两组无统计学差异（P>0.05）。穿刺后经直肠组和经会阴组的血尿发生率分别为40.1%、42.6%,尿潴留发生率分别为6.9%、7.3%,直肠出血发生率分别为1.1%、0%,差别无统计学意义（P>0.05）。穿刺后经直肠组和经会阴组的会阴肿胀的发生率分别为2.6%、13.2%,两组有统计学差异（P<0.05）。结论 超声引导下经直肠、经会阴前列腺穿刺活检均为前列腺癌诊断的有效方法。两者穿刺阳性率无明显差异,但并发症各有特点。     

MRI定位联合经直肠超声引导下经会阴穿刺诊断前列腺癌

目的观察MRI引导目标穿刺活检(TB)诊断前列腺癌(PCa)的临床应用价值。方法对120例临床疑诊PCa患者行MRI,而后在经直肠超声(TRUS)引导下,分别采用系统穿刺(SB)与MRI定位行经会阴前列腺目标穿刺术(MRI-TB)。根据穿刺病理结果统计SB、MRI-TB及SB+MRI-TB对PCa检出率和穿刺阳性针率。结果病理诊断78例PCa,42例良性病变。SB、MRI-TB对PCa的漏诊率分别为23.08%(18/78)、8.97%(7/78),差异有统计学意义(P=0.048)。SB、MRI-TB及SB+MRI-TB对PCa的检出率分别为50.00%(60/120)、59.17%(71/120)和65.00%(78/120),SB+MRI-TB高于SB和MRI-TB(P均0.05)。SB、MRI-TB及SB+MRI-TB的阳性针率分别为31.17%(374/1 200)、59.58%(286/480)及35.14%(538/1 531),MRI-TB高于SB和SB+MRI-TB(P均0.001)。结论采用MRI-TB方案可提高穿刺阳性针率,减少穿刺点数,降低重复穿刺和并发症风险;联合应用SB+MRI-TB可提高PCa检出率。     

前列腺靶向穿刺活检新进展

影像学引导下靶向活检是当下前列腺癌穿刺活检的主流方式,基于影像学和生化标志物的风险分组可能成为前列腺癌穿刺活检的新标准,本文就前列腺靶向穿刺活检中不同影像学方法的新进展以及活检策略进行综述：超声辅助引导下前列腺活检的方法主要包括直肠超声前列腺活检(TRUS)、经直肠超声造影(TR-CEUS)、经直肠实时弹性成像(TRTE),与活检联合应用能显著增加前列腺癌的诊断率。三维经超声直肠检查(3D-TRUS)技术可适用于先前活检结果为阴性的患者。目前最新的超声手段显微超声(Micro-US)在前列腺靶向活检检出率方面并不逊于多参数磁共振(mp-MRI)。mp-MRI靶向活检提高了临床有意义前列腺癌(csPCa)的检出率,目前常见的核磁靶向技术为认知融合活检(MRI-visual-TB)、mp-MRI/TRUS融合活检(MRI-fusion-TB)、mp-MRI直接引导下穿刺活检(MRI-TB)。将MRI与Micro-US成像融合用于靶向活检也成为新的靶向活检方式,磁共振(MR)机器人辅助活检正逐渐被应用。正电子发射断层扫描/计算机断层扫描(PET/CT)更加改善了对肿瘤的定位,对初始分期、生化...     

经直肠超声造影靶向前列腺穿刺活检在PSA水平为4~20 ng/ml患者中的作用

目的：探讨前列腺超声造影在经直肠前列腺靶向穿刺活检中的临床应用价值.方法选择96例血清PSA在4~20 ng/ml行前列腺穿刺活检的患者,其中50例行经直肠超声前列腺13针系统性穿刺活检;46例先行经直肠前列腺超声造影,后对超声造影异常增强区靶向穿刺加6点常规穿刺,超声造影无异常者同系统性穿刺.比较两组穿刺活检的效率.结果系统性穿刺组前列腺癌的阳性率为22.0％,造影穿刺组为41.3％,两组间对单纯移行区肿瘤的检出率有统计学差异(P＜0.05).系统穿刺组人均穿刺13.0针,单针阳性率为11％;造影穿刺组人均穿刺10.9针,单针阳性率为20％;两组单针阳性率、人均穿刺针数差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05).超声造影异常的患者单针阳性率明显高于普通超声检查的患者(31.5％ v s 11.3％),同时人均穿刺针数低于超声引导下系统性穿刺(9.7 vs 13.0针),差异具有统计学意义(P＜0.05).系统性穿刺组前列腺癌患者总 Gleason评分为74分,人均6.7分,超声造影穿刺组则分别为133、7.0分,两组比较有统计学差异.两组无严重并发症.结论对于PSA＜20 ng/ml 的患者,超声造影对引导经直肠前列腺靶向穿刺活检具有更高的效率,可减轻患者的痛苦.     

人工智能引导影像融合辅助经会阴前列腺穿刺活检临床研究

目的:比较人工智能(AI)引导多参数磁共振-经直肠超声(mpMRI-TRUS)融合辅助经会阴前列腺系统穿刺、靶向穿刺和联合穿刺对前列腺癌(PCa)的诊断效能,以评估联合穿刺活检在临床上的应用价值。方法:自2022年4月开始收集于东部战区总医院行3.0T mpMRI检查发现前列腺可疑病灶(PI-RADS评分≥3分)继而接受AI引导mpMRI-TRUS融合辅助经会阴前列腺穿刺患者的一般个人信息和临床资料,包括年龄、PSA水平、前列腺体积(PV)、PSA密度(PSAD)、PI-RADS评分、穿刺组织Gleason评分等。穿刺前先将mpMRI影像数据导入实时融合成像系统,图像融合完成后,以显示的可疑PCa病灶为靶目标,先对靶目标行靶向穿刺2至3针,再继续行系统穿刺12针。将靶向穿刺+系统穿刺结果定义为联合穿刺结果。比较不同穿刺方式PCa检出率、临床有意义前列腺癌(CsPCa)检出率和病理Gleason评分的差异,并进一步评估其在不同PI-RADS评分分组中的诊断效能。结果:本研究纳入的220例患者中共检出PCa 118例。系统穿刺和靶向穿刺的PCa检出率分别为40.45%和43.64%,差异无...     

经会阴前列腺24针饱和穿刺活检与14针活检在PSA＜20μg/L患者中筛检前列腺癌的对比性研究

目的:探讨超声引导下经会阴前列腺24针饱和穿刺活检与14针穿刺活检方案对PSA<20μg/L可疑前列腺癌患者的筛检阳性率及其相关并发症。方法:选取116例可疑前列腺癌患者行经会阴超声引导下14针穿刺活检(14针组),另136例患者,行经会阴24针饱和前列腺穿刺活检(24针饱和组),比较两组前列腺癌筛检阳性率、标本阳性率及穿刺后肉眼血尿、泌尿系感染、尿潴留等并发症的发生率。结果:两组患者平均年龄、穿刺前PSA水平、平均前列腺体积等指标均无统计学差异(P>0.05)。24针饱和组及14针组前列腺癌筛检总体阳性率分别为48.53%和17.24%,存在显著性差异(P<0.001),标本阳性率分别为8.09%和2.83%(P=0.012);其中24针饱和组前列腺尖部肿瘤的检出率(11.76%)显著高于14针组(1.72%,P<0.05)。两组穿刺后尿潴留、泌尿系感染和肉眼血尿等发生率均无统计学差异(P>0.05)。结论:24针经会阴前列腺饱和穿刺活检方法显著提高PSA<20μg/L患者中前列腺癌的筛检阳性率,尤其是增加了前列腺尖部区域的肿瘤筛检阳性率,而并未增加相关并发症。     

Protocol for the TRANSLATE prospective,multicentre, randomised clinical trial of prostate biopsy technique

Objectives

Primary objectives: to determine whether local anaesthetic transperineal prostate (LATP) biopsy improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade Group ≥2 disease (i.e., any Gleason pattern 4 disease), compared to transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) prostate biopsy, in biopsy-naïve men undergoing biopsy based on suspicion of csPCa. Secondary objectives: to compare (i) infection rates, (ii) health-related quality of life, (iii) patient-reported procedure tolerability, (iv) patient-reported biopsy-related complications (including bleeding, bruising, pain, loss of erectile function), (v) number of subsequent prostate biopsy procedures required, (vi) cost-effectiveness, (vii) other histological parameters, and (viii) burden and rate of detection of clinically insignificant PCa (ISUP Grade Group 1 disease) in men undergoing these two types of prostate biopsy.

Patients and Methods

The TRANSLATE trial is a UK-wide, multicentre, randomised clinical trial that meets the criteria for level-one evidence in diagnostic test evaluation. TRANSLATE is investigating whether LATP biopsy leads to a higher rate of detection of csPCa compared to TRUS prostate biopsy. Both biopsies are being performed with an average of 12 systematic cores in six sectors (depending on prostate size), plus three to five target cores per multiparametric/bi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging lesion. LATP biopsy is performed using an ultrasound probe-mounted needle-guidance device (either the ‘Precision-Point’ or BK UA1232 system). TRUS biopsy is performed according to each hospital's standard practice. The study is 90% powered to detect a 10% difference (LATP biopsy hypothesised at 55% detection rate for csPCa vs 45% for TRUS biopsy). A total of 1042 biopsy-naïve men referred with suspected PCa need to be recruited.

Conclusions

This trial will provide robust prospective data to determine the diagnostic ability of LATP biopsy vs TRUS biopsy in the primary diagnostic setting.     

The results of transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This systematic review was performed to compare the efficacy and complications of transperineal (TP) vs. transrectal (TR) prostate biopsy. A systematic research of PUBMED, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify all clinical controlled trials on prostate cancer (PCa) detection rate and complications achieved by TP and TR biopsies. Prostate biopsies included sextant, extensive and saturation biopsy procedures. All patients were assigned to a TR group and a TP group. Subgroup analysis was performed according to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and digital rectal examination (DRE) findings. The Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 5.1 software was used for the meta-analysis. A total of seven trials, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and four case-control studies (CCS), met our inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in the cancer detection rate between the sextant TR and TP groups (risk difference (RD), -0.02; 95% confidence interval (CI), -0.08-0.03; P=0.34). Meta-analysis for RCTs combined with CCS showed that there was no difference in the cancer detection rate between the extensive TR and TP group (RD, -0.01; 95% CI, -0.05-0.04; P=0.81). There was no significant difference in PCa detection rate between the saturation TR and TP approaches (31.4% vs. 25.7%, respectively; P=0.3). There were also no significant differences in cancer detection between the TR and TP groups in each subgroup. Although the data on complications were not pooled for the meta-analysis, no significant difference was found when comparing TR and TP studies. TR and TP biopsies were equivalent in terms of efficiency and related complications. TP prostate biopsy should be an available and alternative procedure for use by urologists.     

Transperineal extended biopsy improves the clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate: A comparative study of 6 and 12 biopsy cores

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the improvement in the rate of prostate cancer detection when using a 12-core transperineal biopsy protocol including transitional zone biopsy. METHODS: Between April 2003 and November 2004, 247 consecutive men underwent transperineal systemic 12-core biopsy of the prostate. Six cores were obtained at the peripheral zone, four at the transitional zone and two at the apex. We examined the cancer detection rate in each of the 12 cores, and also determined the improvement of cancer detection resulting from the extensive 12-core versus standard 6-core biopsy. RESULTS: Using the extensive 12-core biopsy, prostate cancer was detected in 98 cases (39.7%). Prostate-specific antigen (PSA), PSA density, the positive rate in digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasound findings were significantly higher in the prostate cancer group than in the non-prostate cancer group, and prostate volume was larger in non-prostate cancer group. Every site showed almost the same positive rate, between 17.8 and 21.5%. There were 20 cases which were positive in the extended biopsy, but negative in the sextant. The detection improved significantly (20.4%). The improvement of cancer detection in extended biopsy was better in men with PSA levels of 10 ng/mL or less (28.9%), PSA density 0.3 or less (25.8%), negative digital rectal examination (23.3%), and negative transrectal ultrasound (21.6%). Of these twenty patients, no cases with insignificant tumor were detected in the six prostatectomy cases. In particular, three cases of the six were transitional-zone-only cancer. CONCLUSION: Transperineal extended 12-core biopsy including 4 transitional zone cores is a more useful procedure than transperineal 6-core biopsy. Routine transitional zone biopsy, that is different from transrectal biopsy, might be useful for detecting biologically significant cancer.     

Evaluación de la biopsia de fusión elástica vs. biopsia sistemática para la detección del cáncer de próstata: resultados de un estudio multicéntrico en 1.119 pacientes

ObjectivesTo assess the accuracy of targeted and systematic biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) in the everyday practice, evaluating the need for additional systematic biopsies at the time of targeted biopsy.Patients and methodsFrom our multicentric database gathering data on 2,115 patients who underwent fusion biopsy with Koelis™ system between 2010 and 2017, we selected 1,119 patients who received targeted biopsies (a median of 3 for each target), followed by systematic sampling of the prostate (12 to 14 cores). Overall and clinically significant cancer detection rate (CDR) of Koelis™ fusion biopsies were assessed, comparing target and systematic biopsies. Secondary endpoint was the identification of predictors of PCa detection.ResultsThe CDR of targeted biopsies only was 48% for all cancers and 33% for csPCa. The performance of additional, systematic prostate sampling improved the CDR of 15% for all cancers and of 12% for csPCa. PCa was detected in 35%, 69%, and 92% of patients with lesions scored as PI-RADS 3, 4 and 5, respectively. Elevated PI-RADS score and positive digital rectal examination were predictors of PCa, whereas biopsy-naïve status was associated with csPCa.ConclusionIn the everyday practice target biopsy with Koelis™ achieves a good CDR for all PCa and csPCa, which is significantly improved by subsequent systematic sampling of the prostate. The outstanding outcomes of fusion biopsy are confirmed also in biopsy-naïve patients. Elevated PI-RADS score and positive digital rectal examination are strongly associated with presence of PCa.     

经会阴10点以下或以上前列腺活检诊断效率和并发症比较

目的 分析经会阴<10点与≥10点前列腺活检的诊断效率和并发症情况. 方法 经直肠超声引导下经会阴前列腺穿刺活检900例,分2组,<10点组759例(A组),平均活检8点;≥10点组141例(B组),平均活检12点.分析2组间总活检阳性率、PSA分层活检阳性率和并发症的差异. 结果 A、B组前列腺癌检出总阳性率分别为41.6%(316/759)和51.8%(73/141),PSA≤10.0 ng/ml患者中活检阳性率分别为6.8%(16/235)和17.8%(8/45),2组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).并发症发生情况:A组出现肉眼血尿者274例(36.1%),尿潴留2例;B组肉眼血尿53例(37.6%),尿潴留1例,2组并发症比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05). 结论 ≥10点前列腺活检的诊断效率高于<10点,并发症发生率无明显差异.     

Systematic sampling during MRI-US fusion prostate biopsy can overcome errors of targeting—prospective single center experience after 300 cases in first biopsy setting

BackgroundMultiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and targeted biopsy have become an integral part of the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa), as recommended by the European Association of Urology Guidelines. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the performance of MRI and MRI-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy as first biopsy setting in a tertiary center.MethodsA cohort of 300 patients was included in the current analysis. All patients presented with clinical or biochemical suspicion of PCa and harbored at least one suspect lesion on mpMRI. MRI-TRUS fusion prostate biopsy, followed by 12 core systematic prostate biopsy were performed by the same operator using a rigid registration system.ResultsThe mean age of the patients was 64 years (IQR: 58–68.5 years) and the mean PSA was 6.35 ng/mL (IQR: 4.84–9.46 ng/mL). Overall cancer and csPCa diagnosis rates were 47% and 40.66%. Overall PCa/csPCa detection rates were 20.4%/11.1%, 52%/45% and 68.5%/66.7% for PI-RADS lesions 3, 4 and 5 (P<0.001/P<0.0001). Larger lesion diameter and lesion volume were associated with PCa diagnosis (P=0.006 and P=0.001, respectively). MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy missed PCa diagnosis in 37 cases (of whom 48.6% ISUP 1) in comparison with 9 patients missed by systematic biopsy (of whom 11.1% ISUP 1). In terms of csPCa, systematic biopsy missed 77.7% of the tumors located in the anterior and transitional areas. The rate of csPCa was highest when targeted biopsy was associated with systematic biopsy: 86.52% vs. 68.79% for targeted biopsy vs. 80.14% for systematic biopsy, P=0.0004. In 60.6% of cases, systematic biopsy was positive for PCa at the same site as the targeted lesion. Of these patients, eight harbored csPCa and were diagnosed exclusively on systematic biopsy.ConclusionsMRI-TRUS fusion prostate biopsy improves the diagnosis of csPCa. The main advantage of an MRI-guided approach is the diagnosis of anterior and transitional area tumors. The best results in terms of csPCa diagnosis are obtained by the combination of MRI-TRUS fusion with systematic biopsy. The systematic biopsy performed during MRI-targeted biopsy could have an important role in overcoming errors of MRI-TRUS fusion systems.