Literature DB >> 25786055

MR Imaging-Transrectal US Fusion for Targeted Prostate Biopsies: Implications for Diagnosis and Clinical Management.

Daniel N Costa1, Ivan Pedrosa, Francisco Donato, Claus G Roehrborn, Neil M Rofsky.   

Abstract

Cancer of the prostate gland is a common but heterogeneous disease requiring individualized risk stratification for optimal clinical management. However, transrectal ultrasonography (US)-guided biopsy-the standard of care for diagnosis of prostate cancer-frequently fails to detect aggressive tumors or provide reliable parameters for pretreatment risk stratification. Multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is the most accurate imaging technique for prostate cancer detection and local staging. Recently, different approaches have been developed to allow targeted biopsies of areas that are suspicious for cancer at MR imaging, including direct MR imaging guidance and MR imaging-transrectal US fusion, which can be achieved with cognitive fusion or software assistance. Regardless of the technique used, targeted prostate biopsies have the potential to increase detection of clinically relevant prostate cancer and provide more reliable risk stratification in patients with known cancer. The authors discuss the shortcomings of traditional diagnostic workup for prostate cancer, the rationale for targeted prostate biopsies, the different techniques available for targeting suspicious areas seen at MR imaging, and the clinical contexts in which targeted prostate biopsies might be useful. In addition, they discuss opportunities and challenges associated with MR imaging-transrectal US fusion biopsy, as well as questions that need to be addressed before formal incorporation of this technique into practice guidelines. (©)RSNA, 2015.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25786055     DOI: 10.1148/rg.2015140058

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiographics        ISSN: 0271-5333            Impact factor:   5.333


  21 in total

1.  Detection of prostate cancer in multiparametric MRI using random forest with instance weighting.

Authors:  Nathan Lay; Yohannes Tsehay; Matthew D Greer; Baris Turkbey; Jin Tae Kwak; Peter L Choyke; Peter Pinto; Bradford J Wood; Ronald M Summers
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2017-06-12

2.  Comparison of Elastic and Rigid Registration during Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Prostate Biopsy: A Multi-Operator Phantom Study.

Authors:  Graham R Hale; Marcin Czarniecki; Alexis Cheng; Jonathan B Bloom; Reza Seifabadi; Samuel A Gold; Kareem N Rayn; Vikram K Sabarwal; Sherif Mehralivand; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Brad Wood; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2018-06-22       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 3.  Follow-up of negative MRI-targeted prostate biopsies: when are we missing cancer?

Authors:  Samuel A Gold; Graham R Hale; Jonathan B Bloom; Clayton P Smith; Kareem N Rayn; Vladimir Valera; Bradford J Wood; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey; Peter A Pinto
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-05-21       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Improved Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Pathology Correlation With Imaging-Derived, 3D-Printed, Patient-Specific Whole-Mount Molds of the Prostate.

Authors:  Daniel N Costa; Yonatan Chatzinoff; Niccolo M Passoni; Payal Kapur; Claus G Roehrborn; Yin Xi; Neil M Rofsky; Jose Torrealba; Franto Francis; Cecil Futch; Phyllis Hagens; Hollis Notgrass; Susana Otero-Muinelo; Ivan Pedrosa; Rajiv Chopra
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 6.016

5.  An initial negative round of targeted biopsies in men with highly suspicious multiparametric magnetic resonance findings does not exclude clinically significant prostate cancer-Preliminary experience.

Authors:  Daniel N Costa; Fernando U Kay; Ivan Pedrosa; Lauren Kolski; Yair Lotan; Claus G Roehrborn; Brad Hornberger; Yin Xi; Franto Francis; Neil M Rofsky
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2016-12-09       Impact factor: 3.498

6.  Gleason Grade Group Concordance between Preoperative Targeted Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Histopathologic Analysis: A Comparison Between In-Bore MRI-guided and MRI-Transrectal US Fusion Prostate Biopsies.

Authors:  Daniel N Costa; Qi Cai; Yin Xi; Debora Z Recchimuzzi; Naveen Subramanian; Aditya Bagrodia; Neil M Rofsky; Claus G Roehrborn; Brad Hornberger; Rajal B Shah; Kenneth Goldberg; Alberto Diaz de Leon; Ivan Pedrosa
Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer       Date:  2021-03-05

Review 7.  Artificial intelligence at the intersection of pathology and radiology in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Stephnie A Harmon; Sena Tuncer; Thomas Sanford; Peter L Choyke; Barış Türkbey
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 2.630

8.  Zinc-sensitive MRI contrast agent detects differential release of Zn(II) ions from the healthy vs. malignant mouse prostate.

Authors:  M Veronica Clavijo Jordan; Su-Tang Lo; Shiuhwei Chen; Christian Preihs; Sara Chirayil; Shanrong Zhang; Payal Kapur; Wen-Hong Li; Luis M De Leon-Rodriguez; Angelo J M Lubag; Neil M Rofsky; A Dean Sherry
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-08-25       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Evaluation of Focal Ablation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Defined Prostate Cancer Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging Controlled Transurethral Ultrasound Therapy with Prostatectomy as the Reference Standard.

Authors:  Elizabeth Ramsay; Charles Mougenot; Robert Staruch; Aaron Boyes; Mohammad Kazem; Michael Bronskill; Harry Foster; Linda Sugar; Masoom Haider; Laurence Klotz; Rajiv Chopra
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-08-18       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Detecting prostate cancer using deep learning convolution neural network with transfer learning approach.

Authors:  Adeel Ahmed Abbasi; Lal Hussain; Imtiaz Ahmed Awan; Imran Abbasi; Abdul Majid; Malik Sajjad Ahmed Nadeem; Quratul-Ain Chaudhary
Journal:  Cogn Neurodyn       Date:  2020-04-11       Impact factor: 5.082

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.