This propensity score-matched analysis evaluates detection rates of prostate cancer in challenging lesions with radiologist assistance, indicating improved outcomes.
Aim: To evaluate the impact of real-time radiologist assistance on the detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and the reduction of overdiagnosis in patients with “challenging” lesions (PI-RADS 3 and 4), using a propensity score-matched analysis.Material and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent software-based MR–US fusion biopsy for PI-RADS 3 or 4 lesions. PI-RADS 5 lesions were excluded to better assess operator-dependent targeting. Patients were stratified into two cohorts: the Multidisciplinary Group (MDG), with active real-time radiologist assistance, and the Single-Operator Group (SOG), performed by the urologist alone. To minimize selection bias, 1:3 propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted based on age, PSA level, prostate volume, and index lesion size.Results: Following matching, 98 patients (28 MDG, 70 SOG) were included. Overall cancer detection rate (CDR) was numerically higher in the SOG (67.1% vs. 53.6%), largely driven by a numerically higher detection of insignificant (ISUP Grade Group 1) cancers (41.4% vs. 21.5%). Conversely, csPCa detection (ISUP ≥2) was higher in the MDG (32.1% vs. 25.7%). “First-strike success” (detection in the first core) was 88.9% in the MDG vs. 75.0% in the SOG. Subgroup analyses showed a strong clinical trend toward superior csPCa detection in the MDG for anterior lesions (60.0% vs. 23.3%, p=0.053).Conclusion: In PI-RADS 3–4 lesions, the single-operator approach yields high sensitivity but may carry a risk of overdiagnosis. Real-time radiologist assistance appears to refine diagnostic yield by increasing csPCa detection while minimizing insignificant findings, particularly in challenging anatomical locations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Özel et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: