Affiliations: [a] Department of Medical Ultrasound, Shanghai Tenth People’s Hospital, Ultrasound Research and Education Institute, Tongji University Cancer Center, Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Ultrasound Diagnosis and Treatment, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| [b] Department of Radiology, Shanghai Tenth People’s Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| [c] Department of Medical Ultrasound, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
Correspondence:
[*]
Corresponding author: Rong Wu, Department of Medical Ultrasound, Shanghai Tenth People’s Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Department of Medical Ultrasound, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. E-mail: wurong7111@163.com.
Abstract: PURPOSE:Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most common cancers in elderly men worldwide. Systematic biopsy guided by transrectal ultrasound remains the standard for PCa diagnosis; however, the false negative rate is 10–20%. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) allows PCa visualization with a more precise localization and a higher accuracy and specificity for the detection of PCa. The physician can mentally relocate the most appropriate area detected on the prebiopsy mpMRI, based on its zonal topography and anatomical landmarks, called cognitive fusion. Herein, we concentrated on the accuracy of PCa localization in cognitive fusion compared with MRI-TRUS fusion and explored the applied scope of cognitive fusion. METHODS:Thirty-two eligible patients with 36 PCa lesions were recruited for our study. TRUS examinations and MRI-TRUS fusion procedures were performed by experienced operators. The cognitive fusion images were compared using the TRUS image in a MRI-TRUS fusion workstation. RESULTS:Using cognitive fusion imaging, 86.1% of the lesions were accurately located by the senior sonographer and 69.4% of the lesions were accurately located by the junior sonographer. The maximum diameter and PI-RADS score of the lesions were important factors that affected the accuracy of cognitive fusion (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the lesions with high PI-RADS scores and the lesions with large diameters were more accurately located using cognitive fusion (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Cognitive fusion is a reliable technique with dependency on working experience, and its accuracy of locating suspicious lesions is consistent with MRI-TRUS fusion in patients with high PI-RADS score and large lesions.
Keywords: Prostate cancer, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, cognitive fusion
