Comparison of Initial Experience with Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging Cognitive Guided Micro-Ultrasound Biopsies versus Established Transperineal Robotic Ultrasound Magnetic Resonance Imaging Fusion Biopsies for Prostate Cancer

Claros, Oliver Rojas; Tourinho-Barbosa, Rafael; Frégeville, A.; Gallardo, Anna Colomer; Muttin, Fabio; Carneiro, Ariê; Stabile, Armando; Moschini, Marco; Macek, Petr; Cathala, Nathalie; Mombet, Annick; Sánchez-Salas, Rafael; Cathelineau, Xavier

doi:10.1097/ju.0000000000000692

Cited by 34 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Claros et al. [ 31 ] compared two cohorts with 222 and 47 patients undergoing MRI-targeted and MUS-targeted biopsy, respectively. The detection rate of PC overall was not significantly different between both groups, suggesting that the approaches are comparable.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Micro-Ultrasound: a way to bring imaging for prostate cancer back to urology

Harland

Stenzl

2021

Prostate International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Only a decade ago, there were insufficient imaging options for the detection and local staging of prostate cancer. However, the introduction of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has advanced a much-needed tool for this scope of application. The possibilities and limitations of mpMRI have been well studied. Imaging must be acquired and evaluated using a standardized protocol (the latest version of Prostate Imaging–Reporting and Data System). Sensitivity has been shown to increase with higher grades and larger tumors, and while the detection rate on a per patient basis is relatively high, the per-lesion detection rate is far inferior. Various specialists have attempted to elevate the use of transrectal ultrasound, a tool frequently used by all urologists. Encouragement for this idea comes from a recently introduced system of high frequency transrectal ultrasound. The level of evidence supporting its use in the detection and staging of prostate cancer is not comparable with mpMRI yet, but initial prospective studies indicate good potential. The sensitivity of micro-ultrasound and mpMRI for clinically significant prostate cancer ranges from 94% to 100% and from 88% to 90%, respectively. Further areas of application, such as local staging for prostate and bladder cancer, are currently being evaluated. In summary, microultrasound presents a promising technology for further improving urological imaging and allows for the possibility of returning prostate cancer imaging to urologists. This review will summarize the current scientific basis for the use of micro-ultrasound in the detection of prostate cancer.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The detection rate of PC overall was not significantly different between both groups, suggesting that the approaches are comparable. In contrast, the detection rates for csPC were significantly different with 23% and 38% for MRI-guided biopsy (MRIGB) and MUS-guided biopsy (MUSGB) ( p = 0.02), respectively [ 31 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Micro-Ultrasound: a way to bring imaging for prostate cancer back to urology

Harland

Stenzl

2021

Prostate International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By contrast, 11.8% of lesions identified only by micro-US but not by MRI also had a positive PCa diagnosis at biopsy [82]. In addition, in a single-institution study of 222 patients comparing different diagnostic strategies, micro-US-guided biopsy of MRI targets was superior to a robotic MRI fusion approach [83]. This suggests that a substantial proportion of MRI targets may be visible and amenable for biopsy with micro-US.…”

Section: B2b: Prostate Cancer Summarymentioning

confidence: 99%

B2B: Prostate Cancer

Loeb¹,

Black²,

Wyatt³

et al. 2021

Proceedings From the SIU B2B Uro-Oncology: GU Cancers Triad Virtual Meeting May 21–22, 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Since the trial presented here, other groups have reported favorable single-center and multicenter results using the second-generation micro-US technology. These include analysis of diagnostic value, 18 detection rate through targeted sampling, 19 case studies on screening and focal therapy, 20,21 prospective validation of PRI-MUS, 22 use of MRI/Micro-US fusion, 23 and comparison to mpMRI. 24,25 PRI 26 where a multiparametric look at the prostate will be performed using elastography and contrast, with images analyzed at a later date and cognitive targeting of areas deemed suspicious.…”

Section: Ta B L Ementioning

confidence: 99%