Literature DB >> 30838429

[Fusion biopsies for primary diagnosis of prostate cancer : Implementation, benefits, and clinical aspects].

L Püllen1, B Hadaschik2, D Eberli3, T H Kuru4,5.   

Abstract

Prostate carcinoma is one of the most common tumors worldwide. Histological confirmation by biopsy is an obligatory part of the diagnostic approach. The main problem of the 10-12-fold transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) biopsy, which has so far been regarded as the gold standard, is the underdiagnosis of clinically significant cancer. MRI-based procedures, so-called fusion biopsies, have shown superior results when compared to conventional biopsies. There are three different approaches (cognitive and software-based MRI/TRUS fusion and in-bore biopsy) with comparable detection rates but differences in the technical aspects and time involvement. In order to reduce fusion errors, targeted biopsies should consist of multiple cores. There is currently no clear preference for the access pathway (transrectal or transperineal), but clinical parameters such as infection risk or location of the tumor can influence the decision. While the German S3 guideline considers MRI prior to primary biopsy to be optional, the 2019 European Association of Urology guidelines already recommend MRI prior to biopsy for all patients. The combination of MRI-targeted and systematic biopsy offers the highest detection rates with the disadvantage that more low-risk tumors are diagnosed. Both the patient and the urologist benefit from an improved informative value of the biopsy when deciding on active surveillance as well as when planning invasive therapies.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Active surveillance; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prophylaxis; Rebiopsy; Transrectal ultrasound

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30838429     DOI: 10.1007/s00120-019-0889-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urologe A        ISSN: 0340-2592            Impact factor:   0.639


  27 in total

1.  Biopsy criteria for determining appropriateness for active surveillance in the modern era.

Authors:  Oleksandr N Kryvenko; H Ballentine Carter; Bruce J Trock; Jonathan I Epstein
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 2.  [MRI/TRUS fusion-guided prostate biopsy : Value in the context of focal therapy].

Authors:  T Franz; J von Hardenberg; A Blana; H Cash; D Baumunk; G Salomon; B Hadaschik; T Henkel; J Herrmann; F Kahmann; K-U Köhrmann; J Köllermann; S Kruck; U-B Liehr; S Machtens; I Peters; J P Radtke; A Roosen; H-P Schlemmer; L Sentker; J J Wendler; U Witzsch; J-U Stolzenburg; M Schostak; R Ganzer
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 0.639

3.  Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.

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

4.  PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2.

Authors:  Jeffrey C Weinreb; Jelle O Barentsz; Peter L Choyke; Francois Cornud; Masoom A Haider; Katarzyna J Macura; Daniel Margolis; Mitchell D Schnall; Faina Shtern; Clare M Tempany; Harriet C Thoeny; Sadna Verma
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-10-01       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 5.  Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsy: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Massimo Valerio; Ian Donaldson; Mark Emberton; Behfar Ehdaie; Boris A Hadaschik; Leonard S Marks; Pierre Mozer; Ardeshir R Rastinehad; Hashim U Ahmed
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-11-01       Impact factor: 20.096

6.  Comparison of patient comfort between MR-guided in-bore and MRI/ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsies within a prospective randomized trial.

Authors:  Christian Arsov; Robert Rabenalt; Michael Quentin; Andreas Hiester; Dirk Blondin; Peter Albers; Gerald Antoch; Lars Schimmöller
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-06-09       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 7.  Comparing Three Different Techniques for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsies: A Systematic Review of In-bore versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound fusion versus Cognitive Registration. Is There a Preferred Technique?

Authors:  Olivier Wegelin; Harm H E van Melick; Lotty Hooft; J L H Ruud Bosch; Hans B Reitsma; Jelle O Barentsz; Diederik M Somford
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2016-08-25       Impact factor: 20.096

8.  Further reduction of disqualification rates by additional MRI-targeted biopsy with transperineal saturation biopsy compared with standard 12-core systematic biopsies for the selection of prostate cancer patients for active surveillance.

Authors:  J P Radtke; T H Kuru; D Bonekamp; M T Freitag; M B Wolf; C D Alt; G Hatiboglu; S Boxler; S Pahernik; W Roth; M C Roethke; H P Schlemmer; M Hohenfellner; B A Hadaschik
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2016-05-17       Impact factor: 5.554

9.  'Prostatic evasive anterior tumours': the role of magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Nathan Lawrentschuk; Masoom A Haider; Nikhil Daljeet; Andrew Evans; Ants Toi; Antonio Finelli; John Trachtenberg; Alexandre Zlotta; Neil Fleshner
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2009-10-08       Impact factor: 5.588

10.  [Value of MRI/ultrasound fusion in primary biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer].

Authors:  F Distler; J P Radtke; C Kesch; M Roethke; H-P Schlemmer; W Roth; M Hohenfellner; B Hadaschik
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 0.639

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.