We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Diagnostic Value of Guided Biopsies: Fusion and Cognitive-registration Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Conventional Ultrasound Biopsy of the Prostate.
Urology 2016 June
OBJECTIVE: To better assess the increased utilization of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and fusion biopsy of the prostate, we compared prostate cancer detection rates among (a) men undergoing MR-ultrasound (US) fusion biopsy, (b) mpMRI cognitive-registration biopsy, and (c) conventional transrectal US-guided biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We present a retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing mpMRI of the prostate with subsequent prostate biopsy from October 2013 to September 2015. Lesions concerning for prostate cancer visualized on mpMRI were targeted with cognitive-registration or MR-US fusion biopsies. A cohort of men undergoing conventional prostate biopsy was utilized for comparison. Rates of cancer detection were compared among the 3 cohorts.
RESULTS: A total of 231 patients underwent mpMRI-targeted biopsy (81 fusion, 150 cognitive). There was no difference in prostate specific antigen, mpMRI-defined Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score or number of lesions, or history of prostate cancer among the cohorts. The overall detection rate of cancer was significantly higher in the fusion cohort (48.1%) compared with both the cognitive (34.6% P = .04) and conventional (32.0%, P = .03) cohorts. Cancer detection rates were comparable in the MRI-cognitive and transrectal prostate US biopsy groups (34.6% vs 32%). MR fusion detected significantly more Gleason ≥7 cancer (61.5 vs 37.5%, P = .04) and significantly less Gleason 6 cancer (38.5 vs 62.5%, P = .04) compared with conventional biopsy.
CONCLUSION: Targeted biopsy of the prostate using MR-US fusion increased the cancer detection rate compared with both cognitive registration and conventional biopsy and was associated with detection of higher-grade cancer compared with conventional biopsy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We present a retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing mpMRI of the prostate with subsequent prostate biopsy from October 2013 to September 2015. Lesions concerning for prostate cancer visualized on mpMRI were targeted with cognitive-registration or MR-US fusion biopsies. A cohort of men undergoing conventional prostate biopsy was utilized for comparison. Rates of cancer detection were compared among the 3 cohorts.
RESULTS: A total of 231 patients underwent mpMRI-targeted biopsy (81 fusion, 150 cognitive). There was no difference in prostate specific antigen, mpMRI-defined Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score or number of lesions, or history of prostate cancer among the cohorts. The overall detection rate of cancer was significantly higher in the fusion cohort (48.1%) compared with both the cognitive (34.6% P = .04) and conventional (32.0%, P = .03) cohorts. Cancer detection rates were comparable in the MRI-cognitive and transrectal prostate US biopsy groups (34.6% vs 32%). MR fusion detected significantly more Gleason ≥7 cancer (61.5 vs 37.5%, P = .04) and significantly less Gleason 6 cancer (38.5 vs 62.5%, P = .04) compared with conventional biopsy.
CONCLUSION: Targeted biopsy of the prostate using MR-US fusion increased the cancer detection rate compared with both cognitive registration and conventional biopsy and was associated with detection of higher-grade cancer compared with conventional biopsy.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app