Fusion US/MRI prostate biopsy using a Computer Aided Diagnostic (CAD) system.

M. Ferriero, U. Anceschi, A. Bove, L. Bertini, R. Flammia, G. Zeccolini, B. de Concilio, G. Tuderti, R. Mastroianni, L. Misuraca, A. Brassetti, S. Guaglianone, M. Gallucci, A. Celia, G. Simone
{"title":"Fusion US/MRI prostate biopsy using a Computer Aided Diagnostic (CAD) system.","authors":"M. Ferriero, U. Anceschi, A. Bove, L. Bertini, R. Flammia, G. Zeccolini, B. de Concilio, G. Tuderti, R. Mastroianni, L. Misuraca, A. Brassetti, S. Guaglianone, M. Gallucci, A. Celia, G. Simone","doi":"10.23736/S0393-2249.20.04008-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nTo investigate the impact of Computer Aided Diagnostic (CAD) system on the detection rate of prostate cancer (PCa) in a series of fusion prostate biopsy (FPB).\n\n\nMETHODS\nTwo prospective transperineal FPB series (with or without CAD assistance) were analyzed and PCa detection rates compared with per patient and per target analyses. Chi-Square and Mann-Whitney test were used to compare categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were applied to identify predictors of any and clinically-significant (cs) PCa detection. Subgroup analyses were performed after stratifying for PIRADS Score and lesion location.\n\n\nRESULTS\nOut of 183 FPB, 89 were performed with CAD assistance. At per patient analysis the detection rate of any PCa and of cs PCa were 56.3% and 30.6%, respectively; the aid of CAD was negligible for either any PCa or csPCa detection rates (p=0.45 and p=0.99, respectively). Conversely in a per target analysis, CAD-assisted biopsy had significantly higher positive predictive value (PPV) for any PCa versus MRI-only group (58%vs37.8%, p=0.001). PI-RADS Score was the only independent predictor of any and csPCa, either in per patient or per target multivariable regression analysis (all p<0.029). In a subgroup per patient analysis of anterior/transitional zone lesions, csPCa detection rate was significantly higher in the CAD cohort (54.5%vs11.1%, respectively; p=0.028), and CAD assistance was the only predictor of csPCa detection (p=0.013).\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nCAD assistance for FPB seems to improve detection of csPCa located in anterior/transitional zone. Enhanced identification and improved contouring of lesions may justify higher diagnostic performance.","PeriodicalId":49015,"journal":{"name":"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica","volume":"77 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.20.04008-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

BACKGROUND To investigate the impact of Computer Aided Diagnostic (CAD) system on the detection rate of prostate cancer (PCa) in a series of fusion prostate biopsy (FPB). METHODS Two prospective transperineal FPB series (with or without CAD assistance) were analyzed and PCa detection rates compared with per patient and per target analyses. Chi-Square and Mann-Whitney test were used to compare categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were applied to identify predictors of any and clinically-significant (cs) PCa detection. Subgroup analyses were performed after stratifying for PIRADS Score and lesion location. RESULTS Out of 183 FPB, 89 were performed with CAD assistance. At per patient analysis the detection rate of any PCa and of cs PCa were 56.3% and 30.6%, respectively; the aid of CAD was negligible for either any PCa or csPCa detection rates (p=0.45 and p=0.99, respectively). Conversely in a per target analysis, CAD-assisted biopsy had significantly higher positive predictive value (PPV) for any PCa versus MRI-only group (58%vs37.8%, p=0.001). PI-RADS Score was the only independent predictor of any and csPCa, either in per patient or per target multivariable regression analysis (all p<0.029). In a subgroup per patient analysis of anterior/transitional zone lesions, csPCa detection rate was significantly higher in the CAD cohort (54.5%vs11.1%, respectively; p=0.028), and CAD assistance was the only predictor of csPCa detection (p=0.013). CONCLUSIONS CAD assistance for FPB seems to improve detection of csPCa located in anterior/transitional zone. Enhanced identification and improved contouring of lesions may justify higher diagnostic performance.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用计算机辅助诊断(CAD)系统的融合US/MRI前列腺活检。
背景:探讨计算机辅助诊断(CAD)系统对一系列前列腺融合活检(FPB)中前列腺癌(PCa)检出率的影响。方法对两组前瞻性经会阴FPB(有或没有CAD辅助)进行分析,并比较每位患者和每个目标分析的PCa检出率。分类变量和连续变量的比较分别采用卡方检验和曼-惠特尼检验。应用单变量和多变量回归分析来确定任何和临床显著(cs) PCa检测的预测因子。在对PIRADS评分和病变部位进行分层后进行亚组分析。结果183例FPB中,89例在CAD辅助下完成。在每个患者的分析中,任何PCa和cs PCa的检出率分别为56.3%和30.6%;对于任何PCa或csPCa的检出率,CAD的帮助都可以忽略不计(p=0.45和p=0.99)。相反,在每个目标分析中,cad辅助活检对任何PCa的阳性预测值(PPV)明显高于仅mri组(58%vs37.8%, p=0.001)。PI-RADS评分是任何和csPCa的唯一独立预测因子,无论是在每个患者还是每个目标的多变量回归分析中(均p<0.029)。在前/过渡区病变的亚组分析中,csPCa检出率在CAD队列中显著更高(分别为54.5%vs11.1%;p=0.028), CAD辅助是csPCa检测的唯一预测因子(p=0.013)。结论scad辅助FPB可提高位于前/过渡区csPCa的检出率。增强的识别和改进的病灶轮廓可以证明更高的诊断性能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica
Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica publishes scientific papers on nephrology and urology. Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of Minerva opinion editorials, editorial comments, original articles, video illustrated articles, review articles and letters to the Editor.
期刊最新文献
Real-life data on long-term follow-up of patients successfully treated with percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS). Identifying tumor-related risk factors for simultaneous adrenalectomy in patients with cT1 - cT2 kidney cancer during robotic assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. A systematic review of nerve-sparing surgery for high-risk prostate cancer. Comparison of outcomes between laparoscopic and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumors (RENAL score ≥ 7 or maximum tumor size > 4cm): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Totally intracorporeal robotic ileal ureter replacement: focus on surgical technique and outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1