PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that MRI-TRUS fusion technique can increase the detection rate of prostate cancer (PC) in patients with previously negative biopsy. METHODS: Patient records of men with persisting suspicion for PC after previous negative biopsy having undergone either extensive transrectal prostate biopsies (MD Anderson protocol; MDA), transperineal saturation (STP) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion transperineal biopsies (MTTP) in three consecutive time intervals were reviewed retrospectively. The respective approach was the standard for the above indication at these episodes. In Cambridge, 70 patients underwent MDA biopsies, 75 STP underwent biopsies and 74 patients underwent MTTP biopsies. In total, 164 MTTP patients with the same indication from Heidelberg were analysed as reference standard. In total, 383 men were included into analysis. Low-grade PC was defined as Gleason score 7 (3 + 4) or lower. RESULTS: Even though MTTP patients had significantly larger prostates, the overall cancer detection rate for PC was the highest in MTTP (24.2 % MDA, 41.3 % STP, 44.5 % MTTP, p = 0.027, Kruskal-Wallis test). The detection rate for clinically relevant high-grade PC was highest in MTTP; however, this did not reach statistical significance compared with MDA (23.5 % MDA, 12.9 % STP, 27.2 % MTTP, p = 0.25, Fischer's exact test). Comparing MTTP between Cambridge and Heidelberg, detection rates did not differ significantly (44.5 vs. 48 %, p = 0.58). There was a higher detection rate of high-grade cancer in Heidelberg. (36.3 vs. 27.2 %, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Patients whom are considered for repeat biopsies may benefit from undergoing MRI-targeted TRUS fusion technique due to higher cancer detection rate of significant PC.
PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that MRI-TRUS fusion technique can increase the detection rate of prostate cancer (PC) in patients with previously negative biopsy. METHODS:Patient records of men with persisting suspicion for PC after previous negative biopsy having undergone either extensive transrectal prostate biopsies (MD Anderson protocol; MDA), transperineal saturation (STP) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion transperineal biopsies (MTTP) in three consecutive time intervals were reviewed retrospectively. The respective approach was the standard for the above indication at these episodes. In Cambridge, 70 patients underwent MDA biopsies, 75 STP underwent biopsies and 74 patients underwent MTTP biopsies. In total, 164 MTTPpatients with the same indication from Heidelberg were analysed as reference standard. In total, 383 men were included into analysis. Low-grade PC was defined as Gleason score 7 (3 + 4) or lower. RESULTS: Even though MTTPpatients had significantly larger prostates, the overall cancer detection rate for PC was the highest in MTTP (24.2 % MDA, 41.3 % STP, 44.5 % MTTP, p = 0.027, Kruskal-Wallis test). The detection rate for clinically relevant high-grade PC was highest in MTTP; however, this did not reach statistical significance compared with MDA (23.5 % MDA, 12.9 % STP, 27.2 % MTTP, p = 0.25, Fischer's exact test). Comparing MTTP between Cambridge and Heidelberg, detection rates did not differ significantly (44.5 vs. 48 %, p = 0.58). There was a higher detection rate of high-grade cancer in Heidelberg. (36.3 vs. 27.2 %, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION:Patients whom are considered for repeat biopsies may benefit from undergoing MRI-targeted TRUS fusion technique due to higher cancer detection rate of significant PC.
Authors: Timur H Kuru; Karan Wadhwa; Richard Tsung Meng Chang; Lina Maria Carmona Echeverria; Matthias Roethke; Alexander Polson; Giles Rottenberg; Brendan Koo; Edward M Lawrence; Jonas Seidenader; Vincent Gnanapragasam; Richard Axell; Wilfried Roth; Anne Warren; Andrew Doble; Gordon Muir; Rick Popert; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Boris A Hadaschik; Christof Kastner Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-06-17 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Georg Salomon; Nils Drews; Philippe Autier; Ann Beckmann; Hans Heinzer; Jens Hansen; Uwe Michl; Thorsten Schlomm; Alex Haese; Thomas Steuber; Markus Graefen; Andreas Becker Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-02-14 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Eric E Sigmund; Glyn Johnson; James S Babb; Thais C Mussi; Jonathan Melamed; Samir S Taneja; Vivian S Lee; Jens H Jensen Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-05-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Thomas Hambrock; Diederik M Somford; Caroline Hoeks; Stefan A W Bouwense; Henkjan Huisman; Derya Yakar; Inge M van Oort; J Alfred Witjes; Jurgen J Fütterer; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-12-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Eva M Serrao; Tristan Barrett; Karan Wadhwa; Deepak Parashar; Julia Frey; Brendan C Koo; Anne Y Warren; Andrew Doble; Christof Kastner; Ferdia A Gallagher Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2015-12-14 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Daniel Junker; Thomas R W Herrmann; Markus Bader; Jasmin Bektic; Gregor Henkel; Stephan Kruck; Markus Sandbichler; David Schilling; Georg Schäfer; Udo Nagele Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-07-01 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Susanne Tewes; Katja Hueper; Dagmar Hartung; Florian Imkamp; Thomas R W Herrmann; Juergen Weidemann; Stefan Renckly; Markus A Kuczyk; Frank Wacker; Inga Peters Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-03-14 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Neil Mendhiratta; Xiaosong Meng; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; James S Wysock; Michael Fenstermaker; Richard Huang; Fang-Ming Deng; Jonathan Melamed; Ming Zhou; William C Huang; Herbert Lepor; Samir S Taneja Journal: Urology Date: 2015-08-31 Impact factor: 2.649