• Serhat Çetin, Serdar Çelik, Murat Yavuz Koparal, Güven Aslan, Sertaç Yazici, Bahadır Şahin, Sinan Sözen, and Levent Türkeri.
• Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkiye.
• Turk J Med Sci. 2024 Jan 1; 54 (6): 132713341327-1334.

Background/AimThis 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) by performing matching analysis.Materials And MethodsThe data of 2061 patients from six centers where software-based TPB is performed were used. All cancer and csPC detection rates of the RR and ER systems were compared following Mahalanobis distance matching with the propensity score caliper method. Logistic regression analysis was applied to identify factors predicting clinically insignificant prostate cancer (ciPC) and csPC diagnoses. Additionally, the International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group (ISUP GG) upgrade rates of RR and ER systems were compared between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathologies.ResultsThe matched sample included 157 RR and 157 ER patients. No statistically significant difference was found between ER and RR in terms of csPC detection rate (28.0% vs. 22.3% respectively, p = 0.242). The detection rate of all cancers by ER compared to RR was found to be significantly higher (54.8% vs. 35.7% respectively p < 0.001,). No statistically significant difference was found between the ER and RR groups regarding pathological upgrade (39.7% vs. 24.2% respectively, p = 0.130). In the logistic regression analysis performed to determine the factors predicting ciPC, decreased prostate volume and ER system use were found to be independent predictive factors.ConclusionWhile the detection rate of csPC was similar for the RR and ER systems, the detection rate of all cancers and ciPC was significantly higher with the ER systems.© TÜBİTAK.

17 keywords...

hide…