Dima Raskolnikov1, Soroush Rais-Bahrami1, Baris Turkbey1, Ardeshir R Rastinehad1, Peter L Choyke1, Bradford J Wood1, Peter A Pinto1. 1. Urologic Oncology Branch (DR, SR-B, PAP) and Molecular Imaging Program (BT, PLC), National Cancer Institute, and Center for Interventional Oncology (BJW, PAP), National Cancer Institute & Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, and The Arthur Smith Institute for Urology, Hofstra North Shore-LIJ School of Medicine (ARR), New Hyde Park, New York.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recent advancements in imaging technology have significantly increased the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer. However, tissue diagnosis and grading remain the gold standard for diagnosis and prognostication. Because transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy performs poorly, extensive research has been conducted into biopsy techniques that are guided by magnetic resonance imaging, including direct in-bore, cognitive fusion and magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided biopsies. METHODS: The PubMed® database was searched from inception until January 15, 2014 for criteria pertaining to targeted prostate biopsy. RESULTS: Initial studies of the 3 types of targeted prostate biopsy yielded similar results. Most importantly, targeted biopsy detects a greater amount of clinically significant prostate cancer than does transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided biopsy has generated the most interest, as it is an office based procedure that does not require a significant change from the current workflow of transrectal prostate biopsy. These techniques hold great promise in the areas of patient selection for definitive treatment, appropriate screening, active surveillance and focal therapy for prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted prostate biopsy has the potential to significantly improve the way patients are screened, treated and monitored in the setting of prostate cancer. These techniques allow for an individualized approach to each patient, which is a substantial improvement over the current practice of effectively random prostate biopsies. Large, multicenter studies are necessary to determine whether targeted prostate biopsy will become a definitive standard of care.
INTRODUCTION: Recent advancements in imaging technology have significantly increased the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer. However, tissue diagnosis and grading remain the gold standard for diagnosis and prognostication. Because transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy performs poorly, extensive research has been conducted into biopsy techniques that are guided by magnetic resonance imaging, including direct in-bore, cognitive fusion and magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided biopsies. METHODS: The PubMed® database was searched from inception until January 15, 2014 for criteria pertaining to targeted prostate biopsy. RESULTS: Initial studies of the 3 types of targeted prostate biopsy yielded similar results. Most importantly, targeted biopsy detects a greater amount of clinically significant prostate cancer than does transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided biopsy has generated the most interest, as it is an office based procedure that does not require a significant change from the current workflow of transrectal prostate biopsy. These techniques hold great promise in the areas of patient selection for definitive treatment, appropriate screening, active surveillance and focal therapy for prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted prostate biopsy has the potential to significantly improve the way patients are screened, treated and monitored in the setting of prostate cancer. These techniques allow for an individualized approach to each patient, which is a substantial improvement over the current practice of effectively random prostate biopsies. Large, multicenter studies are necessary to determine whether targeted prostate biopsy will become a definitive standard of care.
Authors: Caroline M A Hoeks; Jelle O Barentsz; Thomas Hambrock; Derya Yakar; Diederik M Somford; Stijn W T P J Heijmink; Tom W J Scheenen; Pieter C Vos; Henkjan Huisman; Inge M van Oort; J Alfred Witjes; Arend Heerschap; Jurgen J Fütterer Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Angelo A Baccala; Paul H Chung; Juan M Proano; Jochen Kruecker; Sheng Xu; Julia K Locklin; Baris Turkbey; Joanna Shih; Gennady Bratslavsky; W Marston Linehan; Neil D Glossop; Pingkun Yan; Samuel Kadoury; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2011-01-15 Impact factor: 7.450
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: Jennifer K Logan; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; Andrew Gomella; Hayet Amalou; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-05-22 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Geoffrey A Sonn; Shyam Natarajan; Daniel J A Margolis; Malu MacAiran; Patricia Lieu; Jiaoti Huang; Frederick J Dorey; Leonard S Marks Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-11-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Soroush Rais-Bahrami; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Baris Turkbey; Lambros Stamatakis; Jennifer Logan; Anthony N Hoang; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Srinivas Vourganti; Hong Truong; Jochen Kruecker; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter L Choyke; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Dima Raskolnikov; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Arvin K George; Baris Turkbey; Nabeel A Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Jason T Rothwax; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Daniel Su; Lambros Stamatakis; Pingkun Yan; Jochen Kruecker; Sheng Xu; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Dima Raskolnikov; Arvin K George; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Baris Turkbey; M Minhaj Siddiqui; Nabeel A Shakir; Chinonyerem Okoro; Jason T Rothwax; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Sandeep Sankineni; Daniel Su; Lambros Stamatakis; Maria J Merino; Peter L Choyke; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-01-23 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Al Sardari; John V Thomas; Jeffrey W Nix; Jason A Pietryga; Rupan Sanyal; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Soroush Rais-Bahrami Journal: Case Rep Urol Date: 2015-12-13
Authors: Geert J L H van Leenders; Theodorus H van der Kwast; David J Grignon; Andrew J Evans; Glen Kristiansen; Charlotte F Kweldam; Geert Litjens; Jesse K McKenney; Jonathan Melamed; Nicholas Mottet; Gladell P Paner; Hemamali Samaratunga; Ivo G Schoots; Jeffry P Simko; Toyonori Tsuzuki; Murali Varma; Anne Y Warren; Thomas M Wheeler; Sean R Williamson; Kenneth A Iczkowski Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 6.298