James S Wysock1, Alex Xu2, Clement Orczyk3,4, Samir S Taneja5. 1. Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. james.wysock@nyumc.org. 2. New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Urology, University College London Hospital, London, UK. 4. Division of Surgery and Interventional Sciences, University College London, London, UK. 5. Division of Urologic Oncology, Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The widely acknowledged limitations of the standard prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostic paradigm have provided an impetus to explore novel imaging modalities to diagnose, localize, and risk stratify PCa. As the body of literature focused on HistoScanning™(HS) grows, there is need for a comprehensive review of the clinical efficacy of this technology. RECENT FINDINGS: Eighteen original, English language articles were found to adequately study the use of HistoScanning™ for prostate cancer diagnosis in the clinical setting. The articles were found by conducting a bibliographic search of PubMed in April 2017 in addition to utilizing references. The studies are divided into four groups based on study design. Study methods and quantitative data are summarized for each of the relevant articles. The results are synthesized to evaluate the utility of HistoScanning™ for the purpose of diagnosing PCa. Despite the promise of early pilot studies, there is a lack of consistent results across a number of further investigations of HistoScanning™. This becomes increasingly evident as study size increases. As various other modern diagnostic modalities continue to develop, the future of HistoScanning™, both alone and in conjunction with these technologies, remains unclear.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The widely acknowledged limitations of the standard prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostic paradigm have provided an impetus to explore novel imaging modalities to diagnose, localize, and risk stratify PCa. As the body of literature focused on HistoScanning™(HS) grows, there is need for a comprehensive review of the clinical efficacy of this technology. RECENT FINDINGS: Eighteen original, English language articles were found to adequately study the use of HistoScanning™ for prostate cancer diagnosis in the clinical setting. The articles were found by conducting a bibliographic search of PubMed in April 2017 in addition to utilizing references. The studies are divided into four groups based on study design. Study methods and quantitative data are summarized for each of the relevant articles. The results are synthesized to evaluate the utility of HistoScanning™ for the purpose of diagnosing PCa. Despite the promise of early pilot studies, there is a lack of consistent results across a number of further investigations of HistoScanning™. This becomes increasingly evident as study size increases. As various other modern diagnostic modalities continue to develop, the future of HistoScanning™, both alone and in conjunction with these technologies, remains unclear.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biopsy; Detection; Imaging; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostate cancer; Screening
Authors: Guillaume Lemaître; Robert Martí; Jordi Freixenet; Joan C Vilanova; Paul M Walker; Fabrice Meriaudeau Journal: Comput Biol Med Date: 2015-02-20 Impact factor: 4.589
Authors: Jonas Schiffmann; Burkhard Beyer; Johannes Fischer; Pierre Tennstedt; Katharina Boehm; Uwe Michl; Markus Graefen; Georg Salomon Journal: Urology Date: 2014-10-24 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Christian P Pavlovich; Toby C Cornish; Jeffrey K Mullins; Joel Fradin; Lynda Z Mettee; Jason T Connor; Adam C Reese; Frederic B Askin; Rachael Luck; Jonathan I Epstein; Harry B Burke Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2013-04-02 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: C Núñez-Mora; J M García-Mediero; P Patiño; C Orellana; A Garrido; A Rojo; D Rendón Journal: Actas Urol Esp Date: 2013-03-16 Impact factor: 0.994
Authors: Hashim U Ahmed; Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily; Louise C Brown; Rhian Gabe; Richard Kaplan; Mahesh K Parmar; Yolanda Collaco-Moraes; Katie Ward; Richard G Hindley; Alex Freeman; Alex P Kirkham; Robert Oldroyd; Chris Parker; Mark Emberton Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jean-Michel Correas; Ethan J Halpern; Richard G Barr; Sangeet Ghai; Jochen Walz; Sylvain Bodard; Charles Dariane; Jean de la Rosette Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-04-18 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Andrey Morozov; Vasiliy Kozlov; Juan Gomez Rivas; Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh; Evgeniy Bezrukov; Alexander Amosov; Eric Barret; Mark Taratkin; Georg Salomon; Thomas R W Herrmann; Ali Gozen; Dmitry Enikeev Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-04-07 Impact factor: 4.226