Maudy Gayet1,2, Anouk van der Aa3,4, Peter Schmitz3, Harrie P Beerlage3,4, Bart Ph Schrier3, Peter F A Mulders5, Massimo Mischi4, Hessel Wijkstra4,6. 1. Department of Urology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, Post office box 90153, 5200 ME, 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands. M.Gayet@jbz.nl. 2. Department of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. M.Gayet@jbz.nl. 3. Department of Urology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, Post office box 90153, 5200 ME, 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Urology, Radboudumc University Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Urology, AMC University Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To overcome the limitations regarding transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies in prostate cancer (PCa) detection, there is a focus on new imaging technologies. The Navigo™ system (UC-care, Israel) uses regular TRUS images and electrospatial monitoring to generate a 3D model of the prostate. The aim of this study was to compare cancer detection rates between the Navigo™ system and conventional TRUS, in patients without a history of PCa. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study by collecting data from all patients who underwent 12-core prostate biopsies from lateral peripheral zones between September 2013 and February 2015 at the Jeroen Bosch Hospital in 's-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands). RESULTS: A total of 325 patients met our inclusion criteria. 77.8 % of biopsy sessions were performed using the Navigo™ system. There was no statistically significant difference in PCa detection (39.9 vs 46.2 % with Navigo™ system and TRUS, respectively). Using the Navigo™ system for taking prostate biopsies proved not to be associated with the presence of PCa at biopsy, likewise for clinically significant PCa and for both subgroups. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of the study include its retrospective design, the limited number of patients in the conventional TRUS group, the statistically significant different number of biopsy sessions and the ones performed by an advanced physician in both groups. CONCLUSION: In our study, there is no added value of 3D TRUS using Navigo™ system compared to conventional 2D TRUS regarding PCa detection in biopsy-naive men and men with prior negative biopsy.
INTRODUCTION: To overcome the limitations regarding transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies in prostate cancer (PCa) detection, there is a focus on new imaging technologies. The Navigo™ system (UC-care, Israel) uses regular TRUS images and electrospatial monitoring to generate a 3D model of the prostate. The aim of this study was to compare cancer detection rates between the Navigo™ system and conventional TRUS, in patients without a history of PCa. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study by collecting data from all patients who underwent 12-core prostate biopsies from lateral peripheral zones between September 2013 and February 2015 at the Jeroen Bosch Hospital in 's-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands). RESULTS: A total of 325 patients met our inclusion criteria. 77.8 % of biopsy sessions were performed using the Navigo™ system. There was no statistically significant difference in PCa detection (39.9 vs 46.2 % with Navigo™ system and TRUS, respectively). Using the Navigo™ system for taking prostate biopsies proved not to be associated with the presence of PCa at biopsy, likewise for clinically significant PCa and for both subgroups. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of the study include its retrospective design, the limited number of patients in the conventional TRUS group, the statistically significant different number of biopsy sessions and the ones performed by an advanced physician in both groups. CONCLUSION: In our study, there is no added value of 3D TRUS using Navigo™ system compared to conventional 2D TRUS regarding PCa detection in biopsy-naive men and men with prior negative biopsy.
Authors: Derek W Cool; Michael J Connolly; Shi Sherebrin; Roy Eagleson; Jonathan I Izawa; Justin Amann; Cesare Romagnoli; Walter M Romano; Aaron Fenster Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: J P Sedelaar; J G van Roermund; G L van Leenders; C A Hulsbergen-van de Kaa; H Wijkstra; J J de la Rosette Journal: Urology Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Maudy Gayet; Anouk van der Aa; Harrie P Beerlage; Bart Ph Schrier; Peter F A Mulders; Hessel Wijkstra Journal: BJU Int Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Alexandre Peltier; Fouad Aoun; Fouad El-Khoury; Eric Hawaux; Ksenija Limani; Krishna Narahari; Nicolas Sirtaine; Roland van Velthoven Journal: Prostate Cancer Date: 2013-11-17
Authors: Anouk A M A van der Aa; Christophe K Mannaerts; Hans van der Linden; Maudy Gayet; Bart Ph Schrier; Massimo Mischi; Harrie P Beerlage; Hessel Wijkstra Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 4.226