PURPOSE: To investigate the potential clinical utility of endorectal MRI-guided biopsy in patients with known or suspected prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively recruited 24 men with known or suspected prostate cancer in whom MRI-guided biopsy was clinically requested after multiparametric endorectal MRI showed one or more appropriate targets. One to six 18-gauge biopsy cores were obtained from each patient. Transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy results and post MRI-guided biopsy complications were also recorded. RESULTS: MRI-guided biopsy was positive in 5 of 7 patients with suspected prostate cancer (including 2 of 4 with prior negative ultrasound-guided biopsies), in 8 of 12 with known untreated prostate cancer (including 5 where MRI-guided biopsy demonstrated a higher Gleason score than ultrasound guided biopsy results), and in 3 of 5 with treated cancer. MRI-guided biopsies had a significantly higher maximum percentage of cancer in positive cores when compared with ultrasound guided biopsy (mean of 37 ± 8% versus 13 ± 4%; P = 0.01). No serious postbiopsy complications occurred. CONCLUSION: Our preliminary experience suggests endorectal MRI-guided biopsy may safely contribute to the management of patients with known or suspected prostate cancer by making a new diagnosis of malignancy, upgrading previously diagnosed disease, or diagnosing local recurrence.
PURPOSE: To investigate the potential clinical utility of endorectal MRI-guided biopsy in patients with known or suspected prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively recruited 24 men with known or suspected prostate cancer in whom MRI-guided biopsy was clinically requested after multiparametric endorectal MRI showed one or more appropriate targets. One to six 18-gauge biopsy cores were obtained from each patient. Transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy results and post MRI-guided biopsy complications were also recorded. RESULTS: MRI-guided biopsy was positive in 5 of 7 patients with suspected prostate cancer (including 2 of 4 with prior negative ultrasound-guided biopsies), in 8 of 12 with known untreated prostate cancer (including 5 where MRI-guided biopsy demonstrated a higher Gleason score than ultrasound guided biopsy results), and in 3 of 5 with treated cancer. MRI-guided biopsies had a significantly higher maximum percentage of cancer in positive cores when compared with ultrasound guided biopsy (mean of 37 ± 8% versus 13 ± 4%; P = 0.01). No serious postbiopsy complications occurred. CONCLUSION: Our preliminary experience suggests endorectal MRI-guided biopsy may safely contribute to the management of patients with known or suspected prostate cancer by making a new diagnosis of malignancy, upgrading previously diagnosed disease, or diagnosing local recurrence.
Authors: Aristotelis G Anastasiadis; Matthias P Lichy; Udo Nagele; Markus A Kuczyk; Axel S Merseburger; Joerg Hennenlotter; Stefan Corvin; Karl-Dietrich Sievert; Claus D Claussen; Arnulf Stenzl; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2006-03-24 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Albert P Chen; Charles H Cunningham; John Kurhanewicz; Duan Xu; Ralph E Hurd; John M Pauly; Lucas Carvajal; Kostas Karpodinis; Daniel B Vigneron Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2006-05-02 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Thomas Hambrock; Caroline Hoeks; Christina Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Tom Scheenen; Jurgen Fütterer; Stefan Bouwense; Inge van Oort; Fritz Schröder; Henkjan Huisman; Jelle Barentsz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-08-27 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Peter A Pinto; Paul H Chung; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Angelo A Baccala; Jochen Kruecker; Compton J Benjamin; Sheng Xu; Pingkun Yan; Samuel Kadoury; Celene Chua; Julia K Locklin; Baris Turkbey; Joanna H Shih; Stacey P Gates; Carey Buckner; Gennady Bratslavsky; W Marston Linehan; Neil D Glossop; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Caroline M A Hoeks; Martijn G Schouten; Joyce G R Bomers; Stefan P Hoogendoorn; Christina A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; Thomas Hambrock; Henk Vergunst; J P Michiel Sedelaar; Jurgen J Fütterer; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Alexander J Nicholson; David R Pettersson; Elena K Korngold; Bryan R Foster; Arthur Y Hung; Christopher L Amling; Fergus V Coakley Journal: Abdom Imaging Date: 2015-10
Authors: Gonzalo Romero; Bryan R Foster; David R Pettersson; Alice W Fung; Alexander R Guimaraes; Fergus V Coakley Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2016-01-28 Impact factor: 1.605
Authors: Apurva A Bonde; Elena K Korngold; Bryan R Foster; Antonio C Westphalen; David R Pettersson; Megan L Troxell; Jeffry P Simko; Fergus V Coakley Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 1.605
Authors: Giovanni Bellomo; Francesco Marcocci; David Bianchini; Emilio Mezzenga; Vincenzo D'Errico; Enrico Menghi; Romano Zannoli; Anna Sarnelli Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-11-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Benjamin Addicott; Bryan R Foster; Chenara Johnson; Alice Fung; Christopher L Amling; Fergus V Coakley Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2017-06