Performing targeted biopsy (TB) first, followed by intraoperative frozen section examination (IFSE), and omitting systematic biopsy (SB) when prostate cancer is detected may reduce the number of unnecessary biopsy cores from SB while maintaining an equivalent prostate cancer detection rate. Patients scheduled for mpMRI/TRUS fusion biopsy due to a PIRADS score ≥ 4 were prospectively enrolled between October 2023 and November 2025. Patients were randomly assigned to a control group (TB + SB) or an observation group using a random number table. In the observation group, TB was performed first, and the obtained specimens were immediately subjected to IFSE. If the result was positive, no further cores were taken; if negative, SB was subsequently performed. The positive detection rate, complication rates, and post-radical prostatectomy (RARP) pathological findings were compared between the two groups. A total of 195 and 187 patients were included in the control and observation groups, respectively. The overall positive biopsy rate was 80.51% (157/195) in the control group and 78.61% (147/187) in the observation group, with no significant statistical difference (P = 0.645). The clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection rates were 67.69% (132/195) and 69.52% (130/187) in the control and observation groups, respectively, showing no significant difference (P = 0.701). The mean number of biopsy cores was 23.89 ± 6.42 in the control group and 8.27 ± 8.90 in the observation group, which was significantly lower than the control group (P 0.05). For patients with suspected prostate cancer, the novel biopsy model based on IFSE may be a feasible option. It can maintain a comparable prostate cancer detection rate while significantly reducing the number of biopsy cores, and shows no oncological disadvantage at the time of RARP.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Yang Luan
Yong-quan Gao
Tian-bao Huang
BMC Cancer
Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Luan et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69df2a4be4eeef8a2a6af7d4 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-026-15960-0