Literature DB >> 34429702

Optimal Number of Systematic Biopsy Cores Used in Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Prostate Biopsy.

Shogo Teraoka1, Masashi Honda1, Ryutaro Shimizu1, Ryoma Nishikawa1, Yusuke Kimura1, Tetsuya Yumioka1, Hideto Iwamoto1, Shuichi Morizane1, Katsuya Hikita1, Atsushi Takenaka1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy (MRF-TB) has been widely reported. In this study, we assessed the effect of reduction of the number of systematic biopsy (SB) cores on the cancer detection rate (CDR).
METHODS: Patients with a high prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level underwent prostate MRI. The Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS) was then used to rate the lesions. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) PSA level between 4.0 and 30.0 ng/mL and (2) patients with one or more lesions on MRI and a PI-RADS score of 3 or more. All enrolled patients were SB naïve or had a history of one or more prior negative SBs. A total of 104 Japanese met this selection criterion. We have traditionally performed 14-core SB following the MRF-TB. In this study, the CDRs of 10-core SB methods, excluding biopsy results at the center of the base and mid-level on both sides, were compared with those of the conventional biopsy method.
RESULTS: We compared CDRs of the 14-core and 10-core SBs used in combination. The overall CDR was 55.8% for the former and 55.8% for the latter, thereby indicating that there was no significant difference (P = 1.00) between the two. In addition, the CDRs of csPCa were 51.9% for the former and 51.1% for the latter, which indicated that there was no significant difference (P = 0.317).
CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in the CDR when the number of SB cores to be used in combination was 14 and 10. ©2021 Tottori University Medical Press.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Image-guided biopsy; magnetic resonance imaging; prostate; prostatic neoplasms; ultrasonography

Year:  2021        PMID: 34429702      PMCID: PMC8380553          DOI: 10.33160/yam.2021.08.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Yonago Acta Med        ISSN: 0513-5710            Impact factor:   1.641


  32 in total

1.  The Institutional Learning Curve of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Prostate Biopsy: Temporal Improvements in Cancer Detection in 4 Years.

Authors:  Xiaosong Meng; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Richard Huang; Fang-Ming Deng; James S Wysock; Marc A Bjurlin; William C Huang; Herbert Lepor; Samir S Taneja
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2018-06-07       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Cost-Effectiveness Comparison of Imaging-Guided Prostate Biopsy Techniques: Systematic Transrectal Ultrasound, Direct In-Bore MRI, and Image Fusion.

Authors:  Wulphert Venderink; Tim M Govers; Maarten de Rooij; Jurgen J Fütterer; J P Michiel Sedelaar
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2017-02-22       Impact factor: 3.959

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.  Is it Time to Perform Only Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Cores? Our Experience with 1,032 Men Who Underwent Prostate Biopsy.

Authors:  Pietro Pepe; Antonio Garufi; Gian Domenico Priolo; Antonio Galia; Filippo Fraggetta; Michele Pennisi
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2018-04-19       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Prostate cancer diagnosis is associated with an increased risk of erectile dysfunction after prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Brian T Helfand; Alexander P Glaser; Kalen Rimar; Sherwin Zargaroff; Jason Hedges; Barry B McGuire; William J Catalona; Kevin T McVary
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2012-05-28       Impact factor: 5.588

6.  Prospective randomized trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided in-bore biopsy to MRI-ultrasound fusion and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsies.

Authors:  Christian Arsov; Robert Rabenalt; Dirk Blondin; Michael Quentin; Andreas Hiester; Erhard Godehardt; Helmut E Gabbert; Nikolaus Becker; Gerald Antoch; Peter Albers; Lars Schimmöller
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-06-23       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  The Learning Curve in Prostate MRI Interpretation: Self-Directed Learning Versus Continual Reader Feedback.

Authors:  Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Abimbola Ayoola; David Hoffman; Anunita Khasgiwala; Vinay Prabhu; Paul Smereka; Molly Somberg; Samir S Taneja
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2016-12-27       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Three-dimensional prostate mapping biopsy has a potentially significant impact on prostate cancer management.

Authors:  Gary Onik; Matthew Miessau; David G Bostwick
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-08-03       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Morbidity of prostatic biopsy for different biopsy strategies: is there a relation to core number and sampling region?

Authors:  Roger Paul; Stefan Schöler; Heiner van Randenborgh; Hubert Kübler; Michael Alschibaja; Raymonde Busch; Rudolf Hartung
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 20.096

10.  A Randomized Controlled Trial To Assess and Compare the Outcomes of Two-core Prostate Biopsy Guided by Fused Magnetic Resonance and Transrectal Ultrasound Images and Traditional 12-core Systematic Biopsy.

Authors:  Eduard Baco; Erik Rud; Lars Magne Eri; Gunnar Moen; Ljiljana Vlatkovic; Aud Svindland; Heidi B Eggesbø; Osamu Ukimura
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-04-07       Impact factor: 20.096

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.