scholarly journals The Value of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Ultrasonography (MRI/US)-Fusion Biopsy in Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Detection in Patients with biopsy-naïve men according to PSA levels: A propensity score matching analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hye Jin Byun ◽  
Teak Jun Shin ◽  
Wonho Jung ◽  
Ji Yong Ha ◽  
Byung Hoon Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Cancer Detection ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Fusion Biopsy ◽  
Prostate Cancer Detection ◽  
Propensity Score Matching Analysis ◽  
Clinically Significant

MP86-13 INCREASED PROSTATE CANCER DETECTION WITH MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING-ULTRASOUND FUSION BIOPSY IN MEN REQUIRING REPEAT BIOPSY

2015 ◽  
Vol 193 (4S) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramkishen Narayanan ◽  
K. Kent Chevli ◽  
David Cipolla ◽  
William Geary ◽  
Margaret Suraf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Cancer Detection ◽  
Repeat Biopsy ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Fusion Biopsy ◽  
Prostate Cancer Detection

scholarly journals The value of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography (MRI/US)-fusion biopsy platforms in prostate cancer detection: a systematic review

2015 ◽  
Vol 117 (3) ◽  
pp. 392-400 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maudy Gayet ◽  
Anouk van der Aa ◽  
Harrie P. Beerlage ◽  
Bart Ph. Schrier ◽  
Peter F.A. Mulders ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Cancer Detection ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Fusion Biopsy ◽  
Prostate Cancer Detection

scholarly journals Optimal PSA Threshold for Obtaining MRI-Fusion Biopsy in Biopsy-Naïve Patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Luke L. Wang ◽  
Brandon L. Henslee ◽  
Peter B. Sam ◽  
Chad A. LaGrange ◽  
Shawna L. Boyle
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Cancer Detection ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Targeted Biopsy ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Fusion Biopsy ◽  
Clinically Significant

Objective. The study investigates the prostate-specific antigen threshold for adding targeted, software-based, magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy during a standard 12-core biopsy in biopsy-naïve patients. It secondarily explores whether the targeted biopsy is necessary in setting of abnormal digital rectal examination. Methods. 260 patients with suspected localized prostate cancer with no prior biopsy underwent prostate magnetic resonance imaging and were found to have Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score ≥   3 lesion(s). All 260 patients underwent standard 12-core biopsy and targeted biopsy during the same session. Clinically significant cancer was Gleason ≥ 3 + 4. Results. Percentages of patients with prostate-specific antigen 0–1.99, 2–3.99, 4–4.99, 5–5.99, 6–9.99, and ≥ 10 were 3.0%, 4.7%, 20.8%, 16.9%, 37.7%, and 16.9%, respectively. Cumulative frequency of clinically significant prostate cancer increased with the addition of targeted biopsy compared with standard biopsy alone across all prostate-specific antigen ranges. The difference in clinically significant cancer detection between targeted plus standard biopsy compared to standard biopsy alone becomes statistically significant at prostate-specific antigen >4.3 ( p = 0.031 ). At this threshold, combination biopsy detected 20 clinically significant prostate cancers, while standard detected 14 with 88% sensitivity and 20% specificity. Excluding targeted biopsy in setting of a positive digital rectal exam would save 12.3% magnetic resonance imaging and miss 1.8% clinically significant cancers in our cohort. Conclusions. In biopsy-naïve patients, at prostate-specific antigen >4.3, there is a significant increase in clinically significant prostate cancer detection when targeted biopsy is added to standard biopsy. Obtaining standard biopsy alone in patients with abnormal digital rectal examinations would miss 1.8% clinically significant cancers in our cohort.

Naive patients with suspicious prostate cancer and positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI): is it time for fusion target biopsy alone?

2021 ◽  
pp. 205141582110237
Author(s):  
Enrico Checcucci ◽  
Sabrina De Cillis ◽  
Daniele Amparore ◽  
Diletta Garrou ◽  
Roberta Aimar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Fusion Biopsy ◽  
Grade Group ◽  
Final Pathology ◽  
Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Clinically Significant

Objectives: To determine if standard biopsy still has a role in the detection of prostate cancer or clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive patients with positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Materials and methods: We extracted, from our prospective maintained fusion biopsy database, patients from March 2014 to December 2018. The detection rate of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer and complication rate were analysed in a cohort of patients who underwent fusion biopsy alone (group A) or fusion biopsy plus standard biopsy (group B). The International Society of Urological Pathology grade group determined on prostate biopsy with the grade group determined on final pathology among patients who underwent radical prostatectomy were compared. Results: Prostate cancer was found in 249/389 (64.01%) and 215/337 (63.8%) patients in groups A and B, respectively ( P=0.98), while the clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate was 57.8% and 55.1% ( P=0.52). No significant differences in complications were found. No differences in the upgrading rate between biopsy and final pathology finding after radical prostatectomy were recorded. Conclusions: In biopsy-naive patients, with suspected prostate cancer and positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging the addition of standard biopsy to fusion biopsy did not increase significantly the detection rate of prostate cancer or clinically significant prostate cancer. Moreover, the rate of upgrading of the cancer grade group between biopsy and final pathology was not affected by the addition of standard biopsy. Level of evidence: Not applicable for this multicentre audit.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document