OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of the medical navigation technique, namely, Real-time Virtual Sonography (RVS), for targeted prostate biopsy. METHODS: Eighty-five patients with suspected prostate cancer lesions using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were included in this study. All selected patients had at least one negative result on the previous transrectal biopsies. The acquired MRI volume data were loaded onto a personal computer installed with RVS software, which registers the volumes between MRI and real-time ultrasound data for real-time display. The registered MRI images were displayed adjacent to the ultrasonographic sagittal image on the same computer monitor. The suspected lesions on T2-weighted images were marked with a red circle. At first suspected lesions were biopsied transperineally under real-time navigation with RVS and then followed by the conventional transrectal and transperineal biopsy under spinal anesthesia. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 69 years (56-84 years), and the prostate-specific antigen level and prostate volume were 9.9 ng/mL (4.0-34.2) and 37.2 mL (18-141), respectively. Prostate cancer was detected in 52 patients (61%). The biopsy specimens obtained using RVS revealed 45/52 patients (87%) positive for prostate cancer. A total of 192 biopsy cores were obtained using RVS. Sixty-two of these (32%) were positive for prostate cancer, whereas conventional random biopsy revealed cancer only in 75/833 (9%) cores (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Targeted prostate biopsy with RVS is very effective to diagnose lesions detected with MRI. This technique only requires additional computer and RVS software and thus is cost-effective. Therefore, RVS-guided prostate biopsy has great potential for better management of prostate cancer patients.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of the medical navigation technique, namely, Real-time Virtual Sonography (RVS), for targeted prostate biopsy. METHODS: Eighty-five patients with suspected prostate cancer lesions using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were included in this study. All selected patients had at least one negative result on the previous transrectal biopsies. The acquired MRI volume data were loaded onto a personal computer installed with RVS software, which registers the volumes between MRI and real-time ultrasound data for real-time display. The registered MRI images were displayed adjacent to the ultrasonographic sagittal image on the same computer monitor. The suspected lesions on T2-weighted images were marked with a red circle. At first suspected lesions were biopsied transperineally under real-time navigation with RVS and then followed by the conventional transrectal and transperineal biopsy under spinal anesthesia. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 69 years (56-84 years), and the prostate-specific antigen level and prostate volume were 9.9 ng/mL (4.0-34.2) and 37.2 mL (18-141), respectively. Prostate cancer was detected in 52 patients (61%). The biopsy specimens obtained using RVS revealed 45/52 patients (87%) positive for prostate cancer. A total of 192 biopsy cores were obtained using RVS. Sixty-two of these (32%) were positive for prostate cancer, whereas conventional random biopsy revealed cancer only in 75/833 (9%) cores (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Targeted prostate biopsy with RVS is very effective to diagnose lesions detected with MRI. This technique only requires additional computer and RVS software and thus is cost-effective. Therefore, RVS-guided prostate biopsy has great potential for better management of prostate cancerpatients.
Authors: T H Kuru; C Tulea; T Simpfendörfer; V Popeneciu; M Roethke; B A Hadaschik; M Hohenfellner Journal: Urologe A Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Matthew D Greer; Anna M Brown; Joanna H Shih; Ronald M Summers; Jamie Marko; Yan Mee Law; Sandeep Sankineni; Arvin K George; Maria J Merino; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: N Westhoff; F P Siegel; D Hausmann; M Polednik; J von Hardenberg; M S Michel; M Ritter Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-11-09 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: T Franz; J von Hardenberg; A Blana; H Cash; D Baumunk; G Salomon; B Hadaschik; T Henkel; J Herrmann; F Kahmann; K-U Köhrmann; J Köllermann; S Kruck; U-B Liehr; S Machtens; I Peters; J P Radtke; A Roosen; H-P Schlemmer; L Sentker; J J Wendler; U Witzsch; J-U Stolzenburg; M Schostak; R Ganzer Journal: Urologe A Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Jennifer K Logan; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Andrew Gomella; Hayet Amalou; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-05-22 Impact factor: 5.588