Abstract:273 Background: Present study aimed to gain insight into whether patients with high-risk prostate cancer (defined as Gleason 8-10) are being more precisely diagnosed by MRI fusion technique compared to TRUS-guided biopsy. Methods: A special retrospective cohort study database analysis was planned and conducted by urological department of University clinic of Cologne. After the database cut off the group of 779 patients with prostate cancer that underwent biopsy and further surgical treatment (radical prostatectomy) was selected. it was split into 2 cohorts according to biopsy type: TRUS guided biopsy and transperineal Fusion Biopsy. Standard systemic approach included 12 cores in TRUS and 18 in MRI-guided cohorts. Additional 5-6 cores were taken from the region of interest in the Fusion group. All the patients during analysis were divided into risk groups: Gleason 6 (3+3) - low risk group, Gleason 7a (3+4) - intermediate risk group, favourable prognosis, Gleason 7b (4+3) - intermediate risk group, unfavourable prognosis, Gleason 8-10 – high group. Concordance of primary and postoperative pathology was estimated by using re-grading levels and migration from low\intermediate to high-risk group. Additionally, the presence of one or more risk factors (perineural and lymphovascular invasion, presence of cribriform pattern, etc.) in primary specimens was evaluated. Results: The groups were statistically equal by age (p = 0,16), PSA risk-groups (χ2= 1,36; p = 0,53), density division ( χ2= 0,58; p = 0,74), prostate volume (p = 0,23) and ECOG status (Me [25 %; 75 %] p = 0,17). There were no significant differences between groups in terms of final pathology – number of cases in low, intermediate and high risk groups (χ2= 1,37; p= 0,5). Difference was observed in lower rate of upgrading to high-risk group and higher detection of risk factors in favour of transperineal-targeted biopsy (Table). Exposure of targeted biopsy increased the probability of detecting high risk PCa by 39% compared to systemic cores (OR 1.39, 95% CI: 0.9 - 1.9; p = 0,06). Conclusions: Transperineal fusion biopsy can be characterised by a higher possibility of detecting high-risk prostate cancer compared to conventional transrectal methods. A higher probability of discovering risk factors after transperineal fusion biopsy might be an important tool for proper staging and risk-adapted treatment strategy.[Table: see text]

Retrospective analysis of the learning curve in perineal robot‐assisted prostate biopsy

The learning curve for robotic-assisted transperineal MRI/US fusion-guided prostate biopsy

The learning curve for transperineal MRI/TRUS fusion prostate biopsy: A prospective evaluation of a stepwise approach

Learning curve for fusion magnetic resonance imaging targeted prostate biopsy and three‐dimensional transrectal ultrasonography segmentation

The learning curve and experience of a novel multi-modal image fusion targeted transperineal prostate biopsy technique using electromagnetic needle tracking under local anesthesia

Robotic-assisted magnetic resonance imaging ultrasound fusion results in higher significant cancer detection compared to cognitive prostate targeting in biopsy naive men

Impact of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy on functional outcomes in patients following robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Impact of operator expertise on transperineal free-hand mpMRI-fusion-targeted biopsies under local anaesthesia for prostate cancer diagnosis: a multicenter prospective learning curve

Comparison between Ultrasound Guided Transperineal and Transrectal Prostate Biopsy: A Prospective, Randomized and Controlled Trial

Experience of the Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy via Completely Posterior and Intrafascial Approach: A Report of 5 Cases

Comparison of transperineal and transrectal biopsy approaches to detect clinically significant prostate cancer in patients undergoing MRI fusion prostate biopsy: A lesion level analysis.

Prostate Cancer Detection Rate of Transperineal Prostate Biopsy: Cognitive Versus Software Fusion, A Multicenter Analysis

From novice to expert: analyzing the learning curve for MRI-transrectal ultrasonography fusion-guided transrectal prostate biopsy

Adverse Pathology after Radical Prostatectomy of Patients Eligible for Active Surveillance-A Summary 7 Years after Introducing mpMRI-Guided Biopsy in a Real-World Setting

The Surgical Learning Curve of Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy

In-bore biopsies of the prostate assisted by a remote-controlled manipulator at 1.5 T

[Diagnostic Accuracy of Transperineal MRI-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy at the Introduction Period]

Preliminary evaluation for ultrasound‐guided targeted prostate biopsy using a portable surgical robot: Ex vivo results

Difference in high-risk prostate cancer detection between transrectal and transperineal fusion approaches.

Transition from Transrectal to Transperineal MRI-Fusion Prostate Biopsy Does Not Comprise Detection Rates of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer at a Tertiary Care Center

Surface-projection-based Transperineal Cognitive Fusion Targeted Biopsy of the Prostate: an Original Technique with a Good Cancer Detection Rate.