{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028747433264887063, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03148528405201916, 'mean_word_length': 4.355311355311355, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
912 Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Cognitive Prostate Biopsy Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Prostate Biopsy in The Detection of Prostate Cancer


 
 
 Prostate biopsy is performed to obtain tissue specimens to diagnose prostate cancer (CaP). Superimposing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on the prostate biopsy machine can improve the targeting of abnormal prostate lesions found on MRI scans. We compare the results of MRI cognitive prostate biopsy to MRI-US fusion biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer.
 
 
 
 Data was collected retrospectively for all patient that had an MRI and prostate biopsy from 01/01/2019 to 31/12/2019. Electronic patient records and radiology imaging software were used to collate data.
 
 
 
 319 patients with at least PIRADS 3 on MRI prostate were identified. CaP was detected in 70% (26/37) of the cognitive biopsy cohort and 66% (186/282) of the fusion biopsy cohort. None of the patients required additional biopsies. Only the fusion biopsy cohort had complications which were Urosepsis - 7, Haematuria - 3, Urinary retention - 1 and Rectal bleeding- 1.
 
 
 
 Our study suggests the CaP detection rates were similar in both cohorts. However, similar patient numbers are required to avoid selection bias. 66.5% of all PIRADS 3 lesions were found to be ≥ Gleason 7. We recommend using magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy to enhance prostate cancer detection rates.
