Markus Herbert Lerchbaumer1, Thomas Fischer2. 1. Department of Radiology, Interdisciplinary Ultrasound Center, Campus Charité Mitte, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany. markus.lerchbaumer@charite.de. 2. Department of Radiology, Interdisciplinary Ultrasound Center, Campus Charité Mitte, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ultrasound (US)-guided biopsy is widely used for the diagnostic confirmation of focal lesions. For sampling of prostate tissue, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/US fusion-guided biopsy has already been implemented in routine clinical practice and has shown a superior detection rate of significant prostate cancer in risk assessment compared with standard systematic biopsy. Newer three-dimensional software tools with volumetric mapping of the prostate and biopsy core channels provide a better overview of systematic biopsy and thus contribute to more accurate treatment planning. Automatic fusion is a time-saver and can reduce potential examiner errors through greater standardization of the fusion process itself. METHODICAL INNOVATIONS: In abdominal pathologies, US fusion biopsy can improve the rate of successful tissue sampling by using fused imaging to target lesions that are barely visible or difficult to delineate on B‑mode US scans. In addition, solid portions within larger tumors with enhancement on contrast-enhanced US can be targeted selectively, thereby avoiding sampling of necrotic areas and improving the quality of tissue cores for histopathological work-up. CONCLUSION: Especially in complex situations, use of US fusion not only saves time but also improves sampling accuracy, which in turn reduces the rate of insufficient tissue specimens that necessitate repeat biopsy.
BACKGROUND: Ultrasound (US)-guided biopsy is widely used for the diagnostic confirmation of focal lesions. For sampling of prostate tissue, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/US fusion-guided biopsy has already been implemented in routine clinical practice and has shown a superior detection rate of significant prostate cancer in risk assessment compared with standard systematic biopsy. Newer three-dimensional software tools with volumetric mapping of the prostate and biopsy core channels provide a better overview of systematic biopsy and thus contribute to more accurate treatment planning. Automatic fusion is a time-saver and can reduce potential examiner errors through greater standardization of the fusion process itself. METHODICAL INNOVATIONS: In abdominal pathologies, US fusion biopsy can improve the rate of successful tissue sampling by using fused imaging to target lesions that are barely visible or difficult to delineate on B‑mode US scans. In addition, solid portions within larger tumors with enhancement on contrast-enhanced US can be targeted selectively, thereby avoiding sampling of necrotic areas and improving the quality of tissue cores for histopathological work-up. CONCLUSION: Especially in complex situations, use of US fusion not only saves time but also improves sampling accuracy, which in turn reduces the rate of insufficient tissue specimens that necessitate repeat biopsy.
Authors: J Rennert; M Georgieva; A G Schreyer; W Jung; C Ross; C Stroszczynski; E M Jung Journal: Clin Hemorheol Microcirc Date: 2011 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Andreas Maxeiner; Thomas Fischer; Carsten Stephan; Selda Treskatsch; Alexander Daniel Jacques Baur; Ernst-Michael Jung; Bernd Hamm; Markus Herbert Lerchbaumer Journal: Clin Hemorheol Microcirc Date: 2021 Impact factor: 2.375
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: Andreas Maxeiner; Thomas Fischer; Julia Schwabe; Alexander Daniel Jacques Baur; Carsten Stephan; Robert Peters; Torsten Slowinski; Maximilian von Laffert; Stephan Rodrigo Marticorena Garcia; Bernd Hamm; Ernst-Michael Jung Journal: Ultraschall Med Date: 2018-06-06 Impact factor: 6.548
Authors: Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Antti S Rannikko; Marcelo Borghi; Valeria Panebianco; Lance A Mynderse; Markku H Vaarala; Alberto Briganti; Lars Budäus; Giles Hellawell; Richard G Hindley; Monique J Roobol; Scott Eggener; Maneesh Ghei; Arnauld Villers; Franck Bladou; Geert M Villeirs; Jaspal Virdi; Silvan Boxler; Grégoire Robert; Paras B Singh; Wulphert Venderink; Boris A Hadaschik; Alain Ruffion; Jim C Hu; Daniel Margolis; Sébastien Crouzet; Laurence Klotz; Samir S Taneja; Peter Pinto; Inderbir Gill; Clare Allen; Francesco Giganti; Alex Freeman; Stephen Morris; Shonit Punwani; Norman R Williams; Chris Brew-Graves; Jonathan Deeks; Yemisi Takwoingi; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-03-18 Impact factor: 176.079