• The Journal of urology · Nov 2014

    Randomized Controlled Trial

    Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging guided in-bore prostate biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in biopsy naïve men with elevated prostate specific antigen.

    • Michael Quentin, Dirk Blondin, Christian Arsov, Lars Schimmöller, Andreas Hiester, Erhard Godehardt, Peter Albers, Gerald Antoch, and Robert Rabenalt.
    • Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, Dusseldorf, Germany. Electronic address: Michael.Quentin@med.uni-duesseldorf.de.
    • J. Urol. 2014 Nov 1; 192 (5): 1374-9.

    PurposeMagnetic resonance imaging guided biopsy is increasingly performed to diagnose prostate cancer. However, there is a lack of well controlled, prospective trials to support this treatment method. We prospectively compared magnetic resonance imaging guided in-bore biopsy with standard systematic transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy in biopsy naïve men with increased prostate specific antigen.Materials And MethodsWe performed a prospective study in 132 biopsy naïve men with increased prostate specific antigen (greater than 4 ng/ml). After 3 Tesla functional multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging patients were referred for magnetic resonance imaging guided in-bore biopsy of prostate lesions (maximum 3) followed by standard systematic transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy (12 cores). We analyzed the detection rates of prostate cancer and significant prostate cancer (greater than 5 mm total cancer length or any Gleason pattern greater than 3).ResultsA total of 128 patients with a mean ± SD age of 66.1 ± 8.1 years met all study requirements. Median prostate specific antigen was 6.7 ng/ml (IQR 5.1-9.0). Transrectal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging guided biopsies provided the same 53.1% detection rate, including 79.4% and 85.3%, respectively, for significant prostate cancer. Magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound guided biopsies missed 7.8% and 9.4% of clinically significant prostate cancers, respectively. Magnetic resonance imaging biopsy required significantly fewer cores and revealed a higher percent of cancer involvement per biopsy core (each p <0.01). Combining the 2 methods provided a 60.9% detection rate with an 82.1% rate for significant prostate cancer.ConclusionsMagnetic resonance imaging guided in-bore and systematic transrectal ultrasound guided biopsies achieved equally high detection rates in biopsy naïve patients with increased prostate specific antigen. Magnetic resonance imaging guided in-bore biopsies required significantly fewer cores and revealed a significantly higher percent of cancer involvement per biopsy core.Copyright © 2014 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.