Application Value of Transperineal Biopsy Using Electromagnetic Needle Tracking Combined with Rapid Paraffin-Embedded Section of Small Specimen in Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer
-
摘要:目的
探讨电磁引导局麻经会阴前列腺mpMRI-TRUS多模态影像融合穿刺活检联合小标本快脱病理学检查在前列腺癌诊断中的应用价值。
方法回顾性分析138例PI-RADS评分≥3分并行电磁引导局麻经会阴前列腺多模态影像融合穿刺活检患者的临床病历资料。使用AI技术将mpMRI与TRUS多模态影像进行融合,对可疑病灶靶向穿刺2针,然后行前列腺系统穿刺12针。靶向穿刺标本进行小标本快脱病理学检查,比较靶向穿刺、系统穿刺及联合穿刺csPCa检出率的差异。
结果138例患者csPCa检出率为71.01%。靶向穿刺和系统穿刺csPCa检出率分别为62.32%和70.29%,差异无统计学意义(P=0.20)。联合穿刺csPCa检出率高于靶向穿刺和系统穿刺,但差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。前列腺PI-RADS 评分3分患者靶向穿刺、系统穿刺和联合穿刺的csPCa检出率分别为30.95%、38.10%和40.48%;评分4分患者分别为52.94%、61.76%和61.76%;评分5分患者分别为90.32%、96.77%和96.77%,不同PI-RADS评分患者三种穿刺方法在csPCa检出率方面差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。前列腺PI-RADS评分3、4、5分患者,靶向穿刺csPCa漏诊率分别为23.53%、14.29%和6.67%。
结论对于PI-RADS v2.1评分≥3分的可疑前列腺癌患者,电磁引导经会阴前列腺穿刺活检联合小标本快脱病理学检查可快速获取病理结果,且有较好的诊断准确性,但联合穿刺仍是目前诊断前列腺癌最合适的方法。
Abstract:ObjectiveTo explore the application value of mpMRI-TRUS multi-modal image fusion transperineal biopsy technique using electromagnetic needle tracking under local anesthesia combined with rapid paraffin-embedded section of small specimen in the diagnosis of prostate cancer.
MethodsThe clinicopathological data of 138 patients with PI-RADS score≥3 who underwent mpMRI-TRUS image fusion transperineal biopsy using electromagnetic needle tracking under local anesthesia were retrospectively analyzed. AI technology was used to fuse mpMRI and TRUS multi-mode images, and two-core targeted biopsies were performed on suspicious lesions, followed by 12-core systematic biopsies. The specimens obtained from targeted biopsies were sent for rapid paraffin-embedded section pathological examination, and the detection rates of csPCa were compared.
ResultsThe detection rate of csPCa in 138 patients was 71.01%. The detection rates of csPCa in targeted biopsies and systematic biopsies were 62.32% and 70.29%, respectively (P=0.20). The detection rate of combined biopsies was higher than those of targeted biopsies and systematic biopsies, but the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05). The detection rates of csPCa in targeted biopsies, systematic biopsies, and combined biopsies in patients with PI-RADS score 3 were 30.95%, 38.10%, and 40.48%, respectively; and the percentages were 52.94%, 61.76%, and 61.76% in patients with PI-RADS score 4, respectively; and the percentages were 90.32%, 96.77%, and 96.77% in patients with PI-RADS score 5, respectively, without statistically significant difference (all P>0.05). In the subgroups with PI-RADS scores of 3, 4, and 5, the missed diagnosis rates of csPCa by targeted biopsies were 23.53%, 14.29%, and 6.67%, respectively.
ConclusionFor patients with suspected prostate cancer and PI-RADS v2.1 score≥3, transperineal biopsy using electromagnetic needle tracking combined with rapid paraffin-embedded section of small specimen can obtain pathological results rapidly and has good diagnostic accuracy. However, combined biopsy is still the most suitable method for the diagnosis of prostate cancer at present.
-
Key words:
- Prostate cancer /
- Small specimen /
- Transperineal /
- Targeted biopsies /
- Rapid paraffin-embedded section
-
0 引言
前列腺癌(Prostate cancer, PCa)是男性泌尿生殖系统最常见的恶性肿瘤[1-2]。据世界卫生组织2022年GLOBOCAN统计,全球约有146万PCa新发病例和39.7万死亡病例,是男性患者中仅次于肺癌的第二常见肿瘤,在肿瘤死因中排第五位[3]。小标本快脱病理学检查是一种利用超声空化技术对获取的小组织标本进行快速处理的过程,减少组织固定、脱水、透明、浸蜡时间,但并不影响切片的质量及后续的病理检查,如免疫组织化学及基因检测等。相较于传统石蜡切片的标本脱水程序从固定到脱水再到浸蜡的漫长过程,小标本快脱病理学检查技术全过程只需3~6小时,让病理科医生获取标本后当天出具病理报告成为现实。
近年来,随着多参数磁共振成像(Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging, mpMRI)及前列腺影像报告和数据系统(Prostate imaging report and data system, PI-RADS)的临床应用,PCa的诊疗更加规范化[4]。文献报道,可疑PCa患者穿刺前行mpMRI检查可使超过三分之一的男性避免接受前列腺穿刺活检[5]。同时,基于mpMRI影像与经直肠超声(Transrectal ultrasonography, TRUS)影像融合图像引导下的前列腺靶向穿刺活检,在有临床意义前列腺癌(Clinically significant prostate cancer, csPCa)检出率方面与系统穿刺相似,但降低了临床无意义前列腺癌(Clinically insignificant prostate cancer, cisPCa)检出率,避免临床中过度诊疗的发生[6-7]。本研究回顾性分析我院138例PI-RADS v2.1评分≥3分行电磁引导局麻经会阴前列腺mpMRI-TRUS影像融合穿刺活检联合小标本快脱病理学检查患者的临床病理资料,探讨电磁引导经会阴前列腺穿刺活检联合小标本快脱病理学检查在PCa诊断中的应用价值。
1 资料与方法
1.1 一般资料
收集2023年1月—12月我院泌尿外科收治行电磁引导局麻经会阴mpMRI-TRUS影像融合靶向前列腺穿刺活检术的138例患者病历资料。术前所有患者均行血PSA、直肠指检和前列腺mpMRI检查。
纳入标准:至少具有以下特征中的一项:(1)PSA>10 ng/ml;(2)直肠指检发现前列腺可疑结节;(3)前列腺mpMRI发现可疑病灶,任何PSA值;(4)PSA 4~10 ng/ml时,f/tPSA<0.16,和(或)PSA密度(PSA density, PSAD)>0.15 ng/ml2,和(或)PSA每年增长速率(PSA velocity, PSAV)>0.75 μg/L。排除标准:(1)非首次穿刺的患者;(2)曾行前列腺电切、气化术,既往因盆腔脏器肿瘤接受手术、局部放疗等患者。
mpMRI序列包括形态学的T2加权像、功能学的扩散加权成像和动态对比增强成像。mpMRI扫描原始图像由具有8年以上经验的放射科医生进行审查,根据PI-RADS v2.1评分标准对核磁图像进行判读[8]。完善术前检查后,由一名高年资泌尿外科医生进行经会阴前列腺穿刺活检。活检获取的样本由同一位具有15年以上经验的泌尿病理学医生评估和判读。根据国际泌尿病理学学会标准,核心组织学为Gleason评分和WHO/ISUP分级组(Grading group, GG)进行组织学分级,csPCa定义为GG≥2。
本回顾性临床研究相关程序遵循2013年改版后的《世界医学协会赫尔辛基宣言》要求,所有患者均签署了知情同意书。
1.2 穿刺方法
仪器选择卡本(深圳)医疗科技有限公司生产的VENUS多模态人工智能(Artificial intelligence, AI)影像融合超声系统。超声系统配备有腔内双平面超声探头及前列腺活检针电磁导航追踪系统。前列腺穿刺针(图1A)与当前国内普遍使用的活检针不同,该活检针尾部设计有一长方体卡槽,电磁传感线插入活检针尾部卡槽内,与电磁导航追踪系统中的电磁发射器进行匹配,在磁场内跟踪针尖的移动及穿刺区域。超声探头上配备有超声探头穿刺架(图1B),用于稳定指引活检针的进针方向。
穿刺前2 h开塞露40 ml塞肛进行肠道准备,穿刺前30 min静脉滴注氟比洛芬酯注射液镇痛。术中采用“一平面三点”双探头超声定位局部麻醉。“一平面”即会阴局部涂抹复方利多卡因乳膏进行皮肤表面麻醉,联合穿刺进针区域注射1%盐酸利多卡因10.0 ml进行皮下浸润麻醉,以减轻活检针进入皮肤的疼痛感。“三点”即前列腺尖部、前列腺左侧叶和右侧叶分别进行前列腺周围神经阻滞麻醉,减轻穿刺活检时疼痛感(图2A、B)。麻醉成功后由同一名经验丰富的高年资医师使用活检针行可疑病灶靶向穿刺2针(图2C),再进行前列腺系统穿刺12针。
图 2 “一平面三点”局麻经会阴前列腺穿刺活检图Figure 2 Transperineal biopsy technique under local anesthesia utilizing the “one plane and three points” approachA: periprostatic nerve block in apex; B: periprostatic nerve block in left and right lateral lobes; C: targeted transperineal biopsy, with the red area indicating the suspicious prostate lesion.接下来采用一种新的“平面法”经会阴前列腺穿刺活检技术。首先,对前列腺可疑病灶进行精准靶向穿刺活检。在电磁导航追踪系统引导下,活检针针尖抵达可疑病灶的外侧缘(图3A)。启动活检针触发按钮,针尖在可疑病灶内进行“贯穿式”精确穿刺(图3B)。接着,进行前列腺系统穿刺活检(图3C)。在多模态融合图像上,双平面超声探头沿自身长轴旋转,在前列腺左、右两侧叶的外侧和内侧区域分别于后、中、前3点进行穿刺活检。
1.3 病理检查
靶向穿刺联合系统穿刺结束后,将穿刺标本依次放入含4%中性缓冲甲醛液标本盒内并标注名称。靶向穿刺获得的小标本组织进行超声空化小标本快脱病理学检查。组织标本的处理利用超声波震动、恒温水浴和专用试剂对病理组织完成固定、脱水、透明全过程,实现组织标本浸蜡、包埋的快速处理过程。系统穿刺获得的组织标本进行传统常规石蜡标本处理过程。分别收集靶向穿刺和系统穿刺的csPCa检出率,联合穿刺csPCa检出率即靶向穿刺与系统穿刺csPCa检出患者的总和占总患者的比例。
1.4 统计学方法
采用Graphpad Prism 9.0统计软件分析患者的临床病理数据。符合正态分布的连续性变量以平均数±标准差表示,非正态分布的连续性变量以中位数(范围)表示;计数资料使用例(n)或百分比(%)表示,两组间比较采用χ2检验(当出现期望值<5时,采用Fisher's精确概率法),以P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。
2 结果
2.1 三种穿刺方式csPCa检出率的比较
138例患者临床特征及csPCa检出率见表1,平均年龄(69.46±7.81)岁。术前血清tPSA 19.08(1.37~188.20)ng/ml,fPSA 2.94(0.35~29.70)ng/ml。前列腺体积45.06(10.64~288.90)cm3。前列腺PI-RADS v2.1评分3分42例,4分34例,5分62例。138例患者中csPCa检出98例。其中前列腺靶向穿刺活检492针,每例平均3.57针,靶向穿刺csPCa检出率为62.32%(86/138)。前列腺系统穿刺活检1 656针,每例12针,系统穿刺csPCa检出率为70.29%(97/138),两种穿刺方法间差异无统计学意义(P=0.20)。联合穿刺csPCa检出率为71.01%(98/138),高于单纯靶向穿刺和系统穿刺的csPCa检出率,但与靶向穿刺和系统穿刺间差异均无统计学意义(靶向vs.联合,P=0.16;系统vs.联合,P=1.00)。靶向穿刺csPCa漏诊率为12.24%(12/98),系统穿刺csPCa漏诊率为1.02%(1/98)。
表 1 患者csPCa检出率比较(n=138)Table 1 Comparison of csPCa detection rates (n=138)Parameter Transperineal prostate
biopsy resultsProstate volume(cm3) 45.06(10.64-288.90) Total PSA(ng/ml) 19.08(1.37-188.20) Free PSA(ng/ml) 2.94(0.35-29.70) PI-RADS v2.1 score(n(%)) 3 42(30.43) 4 34(24.64) 5 62(44.93) Tumor detection rate(n(%)) Targeted biopsies 86(62.32) Systematic biopsies 97(70.29) Combined biopsies 98(71.01) Tumor missed detection rate(n(%)) Targeted biopsies 12(12.24) Systematic biopsies 1(1.02) 2.2 不同PI-RADS v2.1评分分组三种穿刺方式对csPCa检出率的比较
不同PI-RADS v2.1评分患者csPCa检出率见表2。PI-RADS v2.1评分3分组患者42例,靶向穿刺、系统穿刺、联合穿刺csPCa检出率分别为30.95%(13/42)、38.10%(16/42)、40.48%(17/42),三种穿刺方法间差异无统计学意义(靶向vs.系统,P=0.65;靶向vs.联合,P=0.49;系统vs.联合,P=1.00)。靶向穿刺csPCa漏诊率为23.53%(4/17),系统穿刺csPCa漏诊率为5.88%(1/17)。PI-RADS v2.1评分4分组患者34例,靶向穿刺、系统穿刺、联合穿刺csPCa检出率分别为52.94%(18/34)、61.76%(21/34)、61.76%(21/34),系统穿刺与联合穿刺csPCa检出率相同,高于靶向穿刺csPCa检出率,但差异无统计学意义(P=0.62)。靶向穿刺csPCa漏诊率为14.29%(3/21)。PI-RADS v2.1评分5分组患者62例,靶向穿刺、系统穿刺、联合穿刺csPCa检出率分别为90.32%(56/62)、96.77%(60/62)、96.77%(60/62),系统穿刺与联合穿刺的csPCa检出率相同,高于靶向穿刺csPCa检出率,但差异无统计学意义(P=0.27)。靶向穿刺csPCa漏诊率为6.67%(4/60)。
表 2 不同PI-RADS评分患者csPCa检出率的比较(n=138)Table 2 Comparison of csPCa detection rates in patients with different PI-RADS scores (n=138)PI-RADS v2.1 score Tumor detection rate (n(%)) Tumor missed detection rate (n(%)) Targeted biopsies Systematic biopsies Combined biopsies Targeted biopsies Systematic biopsies 3 13(30.95) 16(38.10) 17(40.48) 4(23.53) 1(5.88) 4 18(52.94) 21(61.76) 21(61.76) 3(14.29) 0(0.00) 5 56(90.32) 60(96.77) 60(96.77) 4(6.67) 0(0.00) 3 讨论
随着我国人口老龄化的加剧,PCa发病率已跃居泌尿男生殖系统肿瘤的第一位,成为严重威胁人体健康的重要疾病[9]。前列腺穿刺活检是诊断PCa的金标准,依据穿刺活检针进针部位,主要有经直肠穿刺和经会阴穿刺两种方式[10]。经直肠穿刺围手术期需使用抗生素来降低穿刺相关感染风险[11-12];同时,经会阴穿刺对前列腺尖部和移行区的肿瘤检出率高[13-14]。相关指南推荐经会阴前列腺穿刺应作为可疑PCa患者穿刺活检的首选进针方式[15-16]。
从可疑PCa患者接受穿刺活检到前列腺疾病确诊的时间即组织标本制作及病理解读所需时间。快速冰冻切片步骤相对简便,不需要对组织标本进行固定,脱水、透明、包埋等程序即可进行切片,减少了一些中间环节,正常情况下30分钟内可出具初步报告。快速冰冻切片在手术过程中提供即时的病理学信息,协助临床医生判断病变性质及手术切缘,进而决定是否需调整手术方案。然后,由于组织未经过脱水、透明等步骤,镜下图像不及传统石蜡切片清晰,存在一定的误诊率[17]。小标本快脱病理学检查是一种采用超声空化技术,对适宜该技术的小组织标本,采用专用环保型超声组织处理试剂,对组织标本的固定、脱水、透明、包埋、制片全过程进行快速处理流程,减少组织固定、脱水、透明、浸蜡时间,但并不影响切片的质量及后续的病理学检查,如免疫组织化学染色及基因检测等[18]。泌尿外科常见的小组织标本有膀胱镜活检标本、前列腺穿刺活检标本和病变体积较小的手术标本(如肾上腺病损切除手术标本)。相比于传统石蜡切片的制作,小标本快脱病理学检查的优点就是显著减少组织固定和脱水的时间,且玻片质量不亚于传统石蜡切片。因此,小标本快脱病理学检查大大缩短患者等待病理诊断所需的时间,避免延误治疗,减轻患者焦虑情绪,降低患者综合费用[19]。
从PCa诊疗临床实践中来看,利用电磁引导经会阴前列腺穿刺活检联合小标本快脱病理学检查新技术,有助于快速获得穿刺活检病理结果,减轻患者因等待前列腺疾病病理诊断相关的心理和经济负担,同时为PCa患者尽早接受抗肿瘤治疗,减少转移和复发,最大限度延长生存期争取宝贵时间,实现医患双方共赢[20]。对于PI-RADS v2.1评分≥3分的可疑PCa患者,电磁引导经会阴前列腺穿刺活检联合小标本快脱病理学检查可3~6小时内快速获取病理结果。若小标本快脱病理学检查报告提示PCa,根据全身影像学评估结果,无手术指征的患者可接受非手术治疗后即刻出院,避免因等待病理报告再次入院治疗,减少患者的等待时间及治疗费用;根据影像学评估结果及患者耐受情况,对于有手术指征的患者,本研究团队正在探索获取小标本快脱病理报告后即刻行前列腺根治手术的可行性。
为提高前列腺穿刺活检的精准度及减少围术期并发症发生率,本研究采用电磁引导经会阴前列腺多模态影像融合靶向穿刺技术。借助多模态AI影像融合超声系统对mpMRI和TRUS影像进行智能融合,降低术者对mpMRI影像阅片能力的要求及提高靶向穿刺的精准度[21]。电磁导航追踪系统对活检针在前列腺内移动方位及取材长度进行可视化显示,实现靶区病灶“贯穿式”精准穿刺,同时避免针尖穿刺长度误判所引起的前列腺周围组织副损伤,减少围术期并发症发生率[22]。有研究报道[23]运用电磁针尖引导进行经会阴前列腺穿刺,csPCa总检出率较高(66.67%),PI-RADS评分为3分、4分和5分患者csPCa检出率分别为61.54%、68.18%和95.45%,本研究csPCa检出率与文献报道相似。与之前的研究结果[24]类似,本研究靶向穿刺csPCa检出率稍劣于系统穿刺,但二者之间差异无统计学意义。靶向穿刺存在一定比例的csPCa漏诊率,对于小标本快脱病理学检查提示良性前列腺病变的患者,仍需等待联合穿刺病理结果以制定患者最佳的治疗方案[25]。
综上所述,本研究探索了电磁引导经会阴前列腺穿刺活检联合小标本快脱病理学检查在PCa诊断中的应用价值,初步临床结果表明经会阴前列腺穿刺活检联合小标本快脱病理学检查可3~6小时内快速获取病理报告,且有较好的诊断准确性,值得在大多数医院推广及应用,但联合穿刺仍是目前诊断PCa最合适的方法。
Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.利益冲突声明:所有作者均声明不存在利益冲突。作者贡献:杨勇军:数据整理及分析,论文撰写曾一鸣、贺显雅:数据整理及分析卢 强:研究操作及指导、论文修改李远伟:研究指导、论文修改及经费支持 -
表 1 患者csPCa检出率比较(n=138)
Table 1 Comparison of csPCa detection rates (n=138)
Parameter Transperineal prostate
biopsy resultsProstate volume(cm3) 45.06(10.64-288.90) Total PSA(ng/ml) 19.08(1.37-188.20) Free PSA(ng/ml) 2.94(0.35-29.70) PI-RADS v2.1 score(n(%)) 3 42(30.43) 4 34(24.64) 5 62(44.93) Tumor detection rate(n(%)) Targeted biopsies 86(62.32) Systematic biopsies 97(70.29) Combined biopsies 98(71.01) Tumor missed detection rate(n(%)) Targeted biopsies 12(12.24) Systematic biopsies 1(1.02) 表 2 不同PI-RADS评分患者csPCa检出率的比较(n=138)
Table 2 Comparison of csPCa detection rates in patients with different PI-RADS scores (n=138)
PI-RADS v2.1 score Tumor detection rate (n(%)) Tumor missed detection rate (n(%)) Targeted biopsies Systematic biopsies Combined biopsies Targeted biopsies Systematic biopsies 3 13(30.95) 16(38.10) 17(40.48) 4(23.53) 1(5.88) 4 18(52.94) 21(61.76) 21(61.76) 3(14.29) 0(0.00) 5 56(90.32) 60(96.77) 60(96.77) 4(6.67) 0(0.00) -
[1] Siegel RL, Giaquinto AN, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2024[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2024, 74(1): 12-49. doi: 10.3322/caac.21820
[2] Han B, Zheng R, Zeng H, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality in China, 2022[J]. J Natl Cancer Center, 2024, 4(1): 47-53. doi: 10.1016/j.jncc.2024.01.006
[3] Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2024, 74(3): 229-263. doi: 10.3322/caac.21834
[4] Fazekas T, Shim SR, Basile G, et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Prostate Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis[J]. JAMA Oncol, 2024, 10(6): 745-754. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.0734
[5] Klotz L, Chin J, Black PC, et al. Comparison of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Biopsy With Systematic Transrectal Ultrasonography Biopsy for Biopsy-Naive Men at Risk for Prostate Cancer: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial[J]. JAMA Oncol, 2021, 7(4): 534-542. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.7589
[6] Eklund M, Jäderling F, Discacciati A, et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy in Prostate Cancer Screening[J]. N Engl J Med, 2021, 385(10): 908-920. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2100852
[7] Nordström T, Discacciati A, Bergman M, et al. Prostate cancer screening using a combination of risk-prediction, MRI, and targeted prostate biopsies (STHLM3-MRI): a prospective, population-based, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial[J]. Lancet Oncol, 2021, 22(9): 1240-1249. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00348-X
[8] Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2[J]. Eur Urol, 2019, 76(3): 340-351. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
[9] Xia C, Dong X, Li H, et al. Cancer statistics in China and United States, 2022: profiles, trends, and determinants[J]. Chin Med J (Engl), 2022, 135(5): 584-590. doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000002108
[10] Connor MJ, Gorin MA, Eldred-Evans D, et al. Landmarks in the evolution of prostate biopsy[J]. Nat Rev Urol, 2023, 20(4): 241-258. doi: 10.1038/s41585-022-00684-0
[11] Hu JC, Assel M, Allaf ME, et al. Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted and Systematic Prostate Biopsy to Prevent Infectious Complications: The PREVENT Randomized Trial[J]. Eur Urol, 2024, 86(1): 61-68. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.12.015
[12] Hogenhout R, Remmers S, van Leenders GJLH, et al. The transition from transrectal to transperineal prostate biopsy without antibiotic prophylaxis: Cancer detection rates and complication rates[J]. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis, 2023, 26(3): 581-587. doi: 10.1038/s41391-022-00641-3
[13] Rai BP, Mayerhofer C, Somani BK, et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-guided Transperineal Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-guided Transrectal Prostate Biopsy-A Systematic Review[J]. Eur Urol Oncol, 2021, 4(6): 904-913. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2020.12.012
[14] Wu Q, Tu X, Zhang C, et al. Transperineal magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy versus transrectal route in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis, 2024, 27(2): 212-221. doi: 10.1038/s41391-023-00729-4
[15] Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2024 Update. Part I: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent[J]. Eur Urol, 2024, 86(2): 148-163.
[16] Parker C, Castro E, Fizazi K, et al. Prostate cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up[J]. Ann Oncol, 2020, 31(9): 1119-1134. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.06.011
[17] Xing NZ, Wang MS, Fu Q, et al. Feasibility of prostatectomy without prostate biopsy in the era of new imaging technology and minimally invasive techniques[J]. World J Clin Cases, 2019, 7(12): 1403-1409. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v7.i12.1403
[18] 熊克美. 超声组织快速处理仪在小标本石蜡快速病理诊断中的应用[J]. 临床与实验病理学杂志, 2015, 31(8): 943-944. [Xiong KM. Application of ultrasound tissue rapid processing instrument in rapid pathological diagnosis of small paraffin samples[J]. Lin Chuang Yu Shi Yan Bing Li Xue Za Zhi, 2015, 31(8): 943-944.] Xiong KM. Application of ultrasound tissue rapid processing instrument in rapid pathological diagnosis of small paraffin samples[J]. Lin Chuang Yu Shi Yan Bing Li Xue Za Zhi, 2015, 31(8): 943-944.
[19] Yang S, Xu X. Anxiety and quality of life among papillary thyroid cancer patients awaiting final pathology results after surgery[J]. Endocrine, 2022, 76(2): 377-384. doi: 10.1007/s12020-022-02996-y
[20] 吴央, 张蓉. DRG付费下的日间模式运营[J]. 中国医院院长, 2023, 19(7): 82-85. [Wu Y, Zhang R. Daytime mode operation under DRG payment[J]. Zhongguo Yi Yuan Yuan Zhang, 2023, 19(7): 82-85.] Wu Y, Zhang R. Daytime mode operation under DRG payment[J]. Zhongguo Yi Yuan Yuan Zhang, 2023, 19(7): 82-85.
[21] Ito M, Yonese I, Toide M, et al. Superior detection of significant prostate cancer by transperineal prostate biopsy using MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion image guidance over cognitive registration[J]. Int J Clin Oncol, 2023, 28(11): 1545-1553. doi: 10.1007/s10147-023-02404-z
[22] Lopez JF, Campbell A, Omer A, et al. Local anaesthetic transperineal (LATP) prostate biopsy using a probe-mounted transperineal access system: a multicentre prospective outcome analysis[J]. BJU Int, 2021, 128(3): 311-318. doi: 10.1111/bju.15337
[23] Fletcher P, De Santis M, Ippoliti S, et al. Vector Prostate Biopsy: A Novel Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Image Fusion Transperineal Biopsy Technique Using Electromagnetic Needle Tracking Under Local Anaesthesia[J]. Eur Urol, 2023, 83(3): 249-256. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.12.007
[24] Baco E, Rud E, Eri LM, et al. A Randomized Controlled Trial To Assess and Compare the Outcomes of Two-core Prostate Biopsy Guided by Fused Magnetic Resonance and Transrectal Ultrasound Images and Traditional 12-core Systematic Biopsy[J]. Eur Urol, 2016, 69(1): 149-156. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.03.041
[25] 何为, 全晶, 张琦, 等. 影像融合靶向穿刺、系统穿刺以及联合穿刺诊断前列腺癌的差异[J]. 中华泌尿外科杂志, 2021, 42(8): 581-585. [He W, Quan J, Zhang Q, et al. Differences in the diagnosis of prostate cancer by image fusion targeted biopsy, systematic biopsy and combined biopsy[J]. Zhonghua Mi Niao Wai Ke Za Zhi, 2021, 42(8): 581-585.] doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112330-20210628-00346 He W, Quan J, Zhang Q, et al. Differences in the diagnosis of prostate cancer by image fusion targeted biopsy, systematic biopsy and combined biopsy[J]. Zhonghua Mi Niao Wai Ke Za Zhi, 2021, 42(8): 581-585. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112330-20210628-00346