Despite limitations considering the presence, staging and aggressiveness of prostate cancer, ultrasonography (US)‐guided systematic biopsies (SBs) are still the ‘gold standard’ for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Recently, promising results have been published for targeted prostate biopsies (TBs) using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography (MRI/US)‐fusion platforms. Different platforms are USA Food and Drug Administration registered and have, mostly subjective, strengths and weaknesses. To our knowledge, no systematic review exists that objectively compares prostate cancer detection rates between the different platforms available. To assess the value of the different MRI/US‐fusion platforms in prostate cancer detection, we compared platform‐guided TB with SB, and other ways of MRI TB (cognitive fusion or in‐bore MR fusion). We performed a systematic review of well‐designed prospective randomised and non‐randomised trials in the English language published between 1 January 2004 and 17 February 2015, using PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. Search terms included: ‘prostate cancer’, ‘MR/ultrasound(US) fusion’ and ‘targeted biopsies’. Extraction of articles was performed by two authors (M.G. and A.A.) and were evaluated by the other authors. Randomised and non‐randomised prospective clinical trials comparing TB using MRI/US‐fusion platforms and SB, or other ways of TB (cognitive fusion or MR in‐bore fusion) were included. In all, 11 of 1865 studies met the inclusion criteria, involving seven different fusion platforms and 2626 patients: 1119 biopsy naïve, 1433 with prior negative biopsy, 50 not mentioned (either biopsy naïve or with prior negative biopsy) and 24 on active surveillance (who were disregarded). The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS‐2) tool was used to assess the quality of included articles. No clear advantage of MRI/US fusion‐guided TBs was seen for cancer detection rates (CDRs) of all prostate cancers. However, MRI/US fusion‐guided TBs tended to give higher CDRs for clinically significant prostate cancers in our analysis. Important limitations of the present systematic review include: the limited number of included studies, lack of a general definition of ‘clinically significant’ prostate cancer, the heterogeneous study population, and a reference test with low sensitivity and specificity. Today, a limited number of prospective studies have reported the CDRs of fusion platforms. Although MRI/US‐fusion TB has proved its value in men with prior negative biopsies, general use of this technique in diagnosing prostate cancer should only be performed after critical consideration. Before bringing MRI/US fusion‐guided TB in to general practice, there is a need for more prospective studies on prostate cancer diagnosis.

The Argus adjustable male sling is a valuable adjunct in the treatment of all degrees of stress urinary incontinence. Complications are not uncommon but are mostly Clavien grade I to II. Patients report significantly improved continence and quality of life after treatment.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

In our study, there is no added value of 3D TRUS using Navigo™ system compared to conventional 2D TRUS regarding PCa detection in biopsy-naive men and men with prior negative biopsy.

Background: To overcome the limitations regarding two dimensional (2D) greyscale (GS) transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)guided biopsy in prostate cancer (PCa) detection and tissue packaging in biopsy processing, there is an ongoing focus on new imaging and pathology techniques. A three-dimensional (3D) model of the prostate with biopsy needle guidance can be generate by the Navigo™ workstation (UC-care, Israel). The SmartBX™ system (UC-care, Israel) provides a prostate biopsy core preembedding method. The aim of this study was to compare cancer detection rates between the 3D TRUSguidance and preembedding method with conventional 2D GS TRUS-guidance among patients undergoing prostate biopsies. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the records of all patients who underwent prostate biopsies for PCa detection at our institution from 2007 to 2016. The cohort was divided into a 2D GS TRUS-guidance cohort (from 2007 to 2013, n = 1149) and a 3D GS TRUS-guidance with preembedding cohort (from 2013 to 2016, n = 469). Effect of 3D GS TRUS-guidance with preembedding on detection rate of PCa and clinically significant PCa (Gleason score ≥ 7 or > 2 biopsy cores with a Gleason score 6) was compared to 2D GS TRUS-guidance using regression models. Results: Detection rate of PCa and clinically significant PCa was 39.0 and 24.9% in the 3D GS TRUS cohort compared to 33.5 and 19.0% in the 2D GS TRUS cohort, respectively. On multivariate regression analysis the use of 3D GS TRUS-guidance with preembedding was associated with a significant increase in detection rate of PCa (aOR = 1.33; 95% CI: 1.03-1.72) and clinically significant PCa (aOR = 1.47; 95% CI: 1.09-1.98). Conclusion: Our results suggest that 3D GS TRUS-guidance with biopsy core preembedding improves PCa and clinically significant PCa detection compared to 2D GS TRUS-guidance. Additional studies are needed to justify the application of these systems in clinical practice.