Current ability of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy to improve the detection of prostate cancer

Urology Practice

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 13-21

  Raskolnikov, Dima ^a   Rais Bahrami, Soroush ^a   Turkbey, Baris ^a   Rastinehad, Ardeshir R ^b   Choyke, Peter L ^a   Wood, Bradford J ^a   Pinto, Peter A ^a  

^a NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b DONALD AND BARBARA ZUCKER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT HOFSTRA NORTHWELL   (United States)

Author keywords

High intensity focused; Image guided biopsy; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostatic neoplasms; Transrectal; Ultrasound

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BIOPSY; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CASE REPORT; COGNITIVE FUSION GUIDED BIOPSY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND GUIDED FINE NEEDLE BIOPSY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MALE; MORTALITY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PROSTATE CANCER; SCORING SYSTEM; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY;

EID: 84904266126     PISSN: 23520779     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.urpr.2014.02.012     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Kaufman J.J., Rosenthal M., Goodwin W.E. Needle biopsy in diagnosis of prostatic cancer. Calif Med 1954, 81:308.
2. Colston J.A. Carcinoma of the prostate. JAMA 1943, 122:781.
3. Krahn M.D., Mahoney J.E., Eckman M.H., et al. Screening for prostate cancer. A decision analytic view. JAMA 1994, 272:773.
4. Watanabe H., Igari D., Tanahasi Y., et al. Development and application ofnew equipment for transrectal ultrasonography. JClin Ultrasound 1974, 2:91.
5. Hodge K.K., McNeal J.E., Terris M.K., et al. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. JUrol 1989, 142:71.
6. Yeo L., Patel D., Bach C., et al. The development of the modern prostate biopsy. Prostate Biopsy 2011, 1-19. InTech, Rijeka, Croatia, Available at. http://www.intechopen.com/books/prostate-biopsy/the-development-of-the-modern-prostate-biopsy, N.K. Bissada (Ed.).
7. Siegel R., Naishadham D., Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin 2013, 63:11.
8. Presti J.C., O'Dowd G.J., Miller M.C., et al. Extended peripheral zone biopsy schemes increase cancer detection rates and minimize variance inprostate specific antigen and age related cancer rates: results of a community multi-practice study. JUrol 2003, 169:125.
9. Loeb S., Carter H.B., Berndt S.I., et al. Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. JUrol 2011, 186:1830.
10. D'Amico A.V., Schnall M., Whittington R., et al. Endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging identifies locally advanced prostate cancer in select patients with clinically localized disease. Urology 1998, 51:449.
11. Turkbey B., Merino M.J., Gallardo E.C., et al. Comparison of endorectal coil and nonendorectal coil T2W and diffusion-weighted MRI at 3 Tesla for localizing prostate cancer: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. JMagn Reson Imaging 2013, Epub ahead of print.
12. Turkbey B., Mani H., Shah V., et al. Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. JUrol 2011, 186:1818.
13. Hoeks C.M., Barentsz J.O., Hambrock T., et al. Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 2011, 261:46.
14. Hambrock T., Hoeks C., Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C., et al. Prospective assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using 3-T diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies versus a systematic 10-core transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy cohort. Eur Urol 2012, 61:177.
15. Wysock J.S., Rosenkrantz A.B., Huang W.C., et al. Aprospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial. Eur Urol 2013, Epub ahead of print.
16. Sparks R., Bloch B.N., Feleppa E., et al. Fully automated prostate magneticresonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound fusion viaa probabilistic registration metric. Proc Soc Photo Opt Instrum Eng 2013, 8671:1.
17. Rastinehad A.R., Turkbey B., Salami S.S., et al. Improving detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: MRI/TRUS fusion-guided prostate biopsy. JUrol 2013, Epub ahead of print.
18. Siddiqui M.M., Rais-Bahrami S., Truong H., et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol 2013, 64:713.
19. Rais-Bahrami S., Siddiqui M.M., Turkbey B., et al. Utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging suspicion levels for detecting prostate cancer. JUrol 2013, 190:1721.
20. Pinto P.A., Chung P.H., Rastinehad A.R., et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. JUrol 2011, 186:1281.
21. Sonn G.A., Natarajan S., Margolis D.J., et al. Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion device. JUrol 2013, 189:86.
22. Delongchamps N.B., Peyromaure M., Schull A., et al. Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer detection: comparison of random and targeted biopsies. JUrol 2013, 189:493.
23. Kuru T.H., Roethke M.C., Seidenader J., et al. Critical evaluation of magneticresonance imaging targeted, transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal fusion biopsy for detection of prostate cancer. JUrol 2013, 190:1380.
24. Miyagawa T., Ishikawa S., Kimura T., et al. Real-time virtual sonography fornavigation during targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging data. Int J Urol 2010, 17:855.
25. Moore C.M., Robertson N.L., Arsanious N., et al. Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2013, 63:125.
26. Logan J.K., Rais-Bahrami S., Turkbey B., et al. Current status of MRI and ultrasound fusion software platforms for guidance of prostate biopsies. BJU Int 2013, Epub ahead of print.
27. Rastinehad A.R., Baccala A.A., Chung P.H., et al. D'Amico risk stratification correlates with degree of suspicion of prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. JUrol 2011, 185:815.
28. Stamatakis L., Siddiqui M.M., Nix J.W., et al. Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer. Cancer 2013, 119:3359.
29. Muller B.G., Fütterer J.J., Gupta R.T., et al. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in focal therapy for prostate cancer: recommendations from a consensus panel. BJU Int 2013, Epub ahead of print.
30. Dickinson L., Ahmed H.U., Allen C., et al. Scoring systems used for the interpretation and reporting of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection, localization, and characterization: could standardization lead to improved utilization of imaging within the diagnostic pathway?. JMagn Reson Imaging 2013, 37:48.
31. Puech P., Rouvière O., Renard-Penna R., et al. Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy-prospective multicenter study. Radiology 2013, 268:461.
32. Haffner J., Lemaitre L., Puech P., et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. BJU Int 2011, 108:E171.
33. Robertson N.L., Hu Y., Ahmed H.U., et al. Prostate cancer risk inflation as aconsequence of image-targeted biopsy of the prostate: a computer simulation study. Eur Urol 2014, 65:628.