OBJECTIVE: To better assess the increased utilization of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and fusion biopsy of the prostate, we compared prostate cancer detection rates among (a) men undergoing MR-ultrasound (US) fusion biopsy, (b) mpMRI cognitive-registration biopsy, and (c) conventional transrectal US-guided biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We present a retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing mpMRI of the prostate with subsequent prostate biopsy from October 2013 to September 2015. Lesions concerning for prostate cancer visualized on mpMRI were targeted with cognitive-registration or MR-US fusion biopsies. A cohort of men undergoing conventional prostate biopsy was utilized for comparison. Rates of cancer detection were compared among the 3 cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 231 patients underwent mpMRI-targeted biopsy (81 fusion, 150 cognitive). There was no difference in prostate specific antigen, mpMRI-defined Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score or number of lesions, or history of prostate cancer among the cohorts. The overall detection rate of cancer was significantly higher in the fusion cohort (48.1%) compared with both the cognitive (34.6% P = .04) and conventional (32.0%, P = .03) cohorts. Cancer detection rates were comparable in the MRI-cognitive and transrectal prostate US biopsy groups (34.6% vs 32%). MR fusion detected significantly more Gleason ≥7 cancer (61.5 vs 37.5%, P = .04) and significantly less Gleason 6 cancer (38.5 vs 62.5%, P = .04) compared with conventional biopsy. CONCLUSION: Targeted biopsy of the prostate using MR-US fusion increased the cancer detection rate compared with both cognitive registration and conventional biopsy and was associated with detection of higher-grade cancer compared with conventional biopsy.
OBJECTIVE: To better assess the increased utilization of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and fusion biopsy of the prostate, we compared prostate cancer detection rates among (a) men undergoing MR-ultrasound (US) fusion biopsy, (b) mpMRI cognitive-registration biopsy, and (c) conventional transrectal US-guided biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We present a retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing mpMRI of the prostate with subsequent prostate biopsy from October 2013 to September 2015. Lesions concerning for prostate cancer visualized on mpMRI were targeted with cognitive-registration or MR-US fusion biopsies. A cohort of men undergoing conventional prostate biopsy was utilized for comparison. Rates of cancer detection were compared among the 3 cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 231 patients underwent mpMRI-targeted biopsy (81 fusion, 150 cognitive). There was no difference in prostate specific antigen, mpMRI-defined Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score or number of lesions, or history of prostate cancer among the cohorts. The overall detection rate of cancer was significantly higher in the fusion cohort (48.1%) compared with both the cognitive (34.6% P = .04) and conventional (32.0%, P = .03) cohorts. Cancer detection rates were comparable in the MRI-cognitive and transrectal prostate US biopsy groups (34.6% vs 32%). MR fusion detected significantly more Gleason ≥7 cancer (61.5 vs 37.5%, P = .04) and significantly less Gleason 6 cancer (38.5 vs 62.5%, P = .04) compared with conventional biopsy. CONCLUSION: Targeted biopsy of the prostate using MR-US fusion increased the cancer detection rate compared with both cognitive registration and conventional biopsy and was associated with detection of higher-grade cancer compared with conventional biopsy.
Authors: M Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Arvin K George; Jason Rothwax; Nabeel Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Dima Raskolnikov; Howard L Parnes; W Marston Linehan; Maria J Merino; Richard M Simon; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Neil Mendhiratta; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Xiaosong Meng; James S Wysock; Michael Fenstermaker; Richard Huang; Fang-Ming Deng; Jonathan Melamed; Ming Zhou; William C Huang; Herbert Lepor; Samir S Taneja Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-06-19 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: James S Wysock; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; William C Huang; Michael D Stifelman; Herbert Lepor; Fang-Ming Deng; Jonathan Melamed; Samir S Taneja Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-11-08 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Camila Lopes Vendrami; Robert J McCarthy; Argha Chatterjee; David Casalino; Edward M Schaeffer; William J Catalona; Frank H Miller Journal: Urology Date: 2019-03-27 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Ariel A Schulman; Christina Sze; Efrat Tsivian; Rajan T Gupta; Judd W Moul; Thomas J Polascik Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 3.092
Authors: Mitch Hayes; Solange Bassale; Nicholas H Chakiryan; Luc Boileau; Jacob Grassauer; Matthew Wagner; Bryan Foster; Fergus Coakley; Sudhir Isharwal; Christopher L Amling; Jen-Jane Liu Journal: BJUI Compass Date: 2022-06-05
Authors: Matthew D Greer; Joanna H Shih; Tristan Barrett; Sandra Bednarova; Ismail Kabakus; Yan Mee Law; Haytham Shebel; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Nooshin Ghavami; Yipeng Hu; Eli Gibson; Ester Bonmati; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore; Dean C Barratt Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2019-09-11 Impact factor: 8.545