Prostate cancer management choices in patients undergoing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy compared to systematic biopsy

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. 241.e7-241.e13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer B. Gordetsky ◽  
Benjamin Saylor ◽  
Sejong Bae ◽  
Jeffrey W. Nix ◽  
Soroush Rais-Bahrami
2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (7) ◽  
pp. 550-557 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshiko Ueno ◽  
Tsutomu Tamada ◽  
Vipul Bist ◽  
Caroline Reinhold ◽  
Hideaki Miyake ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 50 (9) ◽  
pp. 594-600 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom W. J. Scheenen ◽  
Andrew B. Rosenkrantz ◽  
Masoom A. Haider ◽  
Jurgen J. Fütterer

2021 ◽  
pp. 205141582110237
Author(s):  
Enrico Checcucci ◽  
Sabrina De Cillis ◽  
Daniele Amparore ◽  
Diletta Garrou ◽  
Roberta Aimar ◽  
...  

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.


2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masoom A. Haider ◽  
Xiaomei Yao ◽  
Andrew Loblaw ◽  
Antonio Finelli

This clinical guideline focuses on: 1) the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPC) in patients with an elevated risk of CSPC and who are biopsy-naïve; and 2) the use of mpMRI in diagnosing CSPC in patients with a persistently elevated risk of having CSPC and who have a negative transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided systematic biopsy.The methods of the Practice Guideline Development Cycle were used. MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library (1997‒April 2014), main guideline websites, and relevant annual meeting abstracts (2011‒2014) were searched. Internal and external reviews were conducted.The two main recommendations are:Recommendation 1: In patients with an elevated risk of CSPC (according to prostate-specific antigen [PSA] levels and/or nomograms) who are biopsy-naïve: mpMRI followed by targeted biopsy (biopsy directed at cancer-suspicious foci detected with mpMRI) should not be considered the standard of care; data from future research studies are essential and should receive high-impact trial funding to determine the value of mpMRI in this clinical context.Recommendation 2:In patients who had a prior negative TRUS-guided systematic biopsy and demonstrate an increasing risk of having CSPC since prior biopsy (e.g., continued rise in PSA and/or change in findings from digital rectal examination): mpMRI followed by targeted biopsy may be considered to help in detecting more CSPC patients compared with repeated TRUS-guided systematic biopsy.


2017 ◽  
Vol 197 (2) ◽  
pp. 327-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akhil Muthigi ◽  
Arvin K. George ◽  
Abhinav Sidana ◽  
Michael Kongnyuy ◽  
Richard Simon ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document