Comparison of rigid and elastic registration methods in software-based targeted prostate biopsy: a multicenter cohort study
2024

Comparing Rigid and Elastic Methods for Prostate Biopsy

Sample size: 2061 publication Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): ÇETİN Serhat, ÇELİK Serdar, KOPARAL Murat Yavuz, ASLAN Güven, YAZICI Sertaç, ŞAHİN Bahadır, SÖZEN Sinan, TÜRKERİ Levent

Primary Institution: Gazi University, Ankara, Turkiye

Hypothesis

This study aims to compare the success rates of rigid registration (RR) and elastic registration (ER) systems in diagnosing all cancers and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC) in software-based targeted prostate biopsies (TPBs).

Conclusion

While the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer was similar for both methods, the detection rate of all cancers and clinically insignificant prostate cancer was significantly higher with the elastic registration systems.

Supporting Evidence

  • The detection rate of all cancers was significantly higher with the elastic registration method (54.8% vs. 35.7%).
  • No significant difference was found in csPC detection rates between the two methods (28.0% vs. 22.3%).
  • Logistic regression identified decreased prostate volume and ER system use as independent predictive factors for ciPC.

Takeaway

Doctors compared two ways to take prostate biopsies to see which one finds more cancers. They found that one method found more cancers than the other.

Methodology

The study used data from 2061 patients across six centers, comparing detection rates of cancers using rigid and elastic registration methods through matching analysis and logistic regression.

Potential Biases

The study's multicentric nature and different radiologists interpreting MRIs may introduce bias.

Limitations

The study is retrospective, involved multiple clinicians, and had variability in MRI interpretations and biopsy operators.

Participant Demographics

Patients included had elevated PSA levels and suspicious DRE findings, with a median age of 63 years.

Statistical Information

P-Value

0.242

Statistical Significance

p<0.001

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.55730/1300-0144.5916

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication