Patient Experience of Systematic Versus Fusion Prostate Biopsies

Eineluoto, Juho; Järvinen, Petrus; Kilpeläinen, Tuomas P.; Lahdensuo, Kanerva; Kalalahti, Inari; Sandeman, Kevin; Mirtti, Tuomas; Rannikko, Antti

doi:10.1016/j.euo.2018.02.005

Cited by 20 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All contemporary AS protocols are highly dependent on routine rebiopsing. A possible explanation for nonadherence is the associated discomfort [26] and complications after biopsy [27] , [28] , [29] . Prostate MRI has emerged as a promising tool to diagnose clinically significant PCs more specifically [30] , [31] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Protocol Make a Difference? Comparison of Two Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Cohorts: A Non–protocol-based Follow-up and a Protocol-based Contemporary Follow-up

Kalalahti

Vasarainen

Erickson

et al. 2021

European Urology Open Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Protocol Make a Difference? Comparison of Two Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Cohorts: A Non–protocol-based Follow-up and a Protocol-based Contemporary Follow-up

Kalalahti

Vasarainen

Erickson

et al. 2021

European Urology Open Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, Eineluoto et al . found that patients undergoing three‐core TBx experienced less pain and hematuria compared with those undergoing 12‐core SBx 4 . However, the risk of missing csPCa needs to be addressed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The risks of infection, bleeding and pain associated with additional cores sampling should be considered when trying to maximize the detection of csPCa 3,4 . Avoiding SBx would reduce the number of biopsy cores and detection of low‐grade disease 5 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using biomarkers in patients with positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: 4Kscore predicts the presence of cancer outside the index lesion

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo evaluate if the blood biomarker, 4Kscore, in addition to multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging information could identify patients who would benefit from undergoing only a targeted biopsy.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed a population of 256 men with positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging who underwent standard + targeted biopsy at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY, USA. 4Kscore (OPKO Health, Miami, FL, USA) was sampled from all patients before biopsy. Uni‐ and multivariable binary logistic regression analyses were carried out to predict clinically significant prostate cancer, defined as International Society of Urological Pathology grade group ≥2, in standard biopsy cores. The model with the best area under the curve was selected and internal validation was carried out using the leave‐one‐out cross‐validation.ResultsThe developed model showed an area under the curve of 0.86. Carrying out only targeted biopsy in patients with a model‐derived probability <12.5% resulted in 39.5% (n = 101) fewer standard biopsies and a 33.9% (n = 20) reduction of detecting grade group 1 disease, while missing grade group ≥2 in 5.2% (n = 4) using standard biopsy only and 1.1% (n = 1) using standard biopsy + targeted biopsy.Conclusions4Kscore in combination with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging can help to reduce unnecessary standard biopsy and decrease detection of clinically insignificant prostate cancer.

show abstract

“…A recent report showed that 72% of the urologists currently employ such a system (2). The MRI-US fusion biopsy platforms have multiple advantages: real-time overlay of the MRI and ultrasound images, with precision similar to the in-bore targeted biopsy (3), possibility of concurrent systematic sampling, shorter duration of the procedure vs. in-bore sampling (4), increased patient compliance and less pain when compared to either in-bore or systematic biopsy (4,5) and better cost-effectiveness from a healthcare system point of view (6,7).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analyzing the learning curves of a novice and an experienced urologist for transrectal magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy

Căta¹,

Praet²,

Andraș³

et al. 2021

Transl Androl Urol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:The aim of the current study was to evaluate and compare the learning curves of transrectal magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy for two urologists with different backgrounds (Operator 1: experienced, self-trained and Operator 2: novice, trained by a mentor/MRI reading courses).Methods: A cohort of 400 patients who underwent fusion prostate biopsy in our department was analyzed.The learning curves were assessed in terms of overall and clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) detection rates, percentage of positive biopsy cores/targeted and the percentage of PCa tissue on positive targeted cores.Results: Increasing trends were observed for both urologists in terms of all biopsy outcomes during the study time. For the novice urologist, a significant increase was observed for overall PCa detection rate, but not for clinically significant disease (25.44%, P=0.04/15%, P=0.145). Operator 1 showed an increasing diagnosis yield of clinically significant disease up to 104 cases. Similar cancer detection rates were observed when comparing the first and last biopsies performed by both operators. Multivariate analysis adjusted for age, PSA, prostate volume, lesion diameter and PIRADS score showed an increase of PCa detection with 51% for every 52 biopsies performed (P=0.022).Conclusions: When starting with magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy, mentoring and prostate magnetic resonance imaging reading training allow a novice urologist to demonstrate a good initial PCa detection rate. After about 52 cases, he reached a stable PCa and clinically significant PCa detection rate, that was similar to that of an experienced urologist.

show abstract

Patient Experience of Systematic Versus Fusion Prostate Biopsies

Cited by 20 publications

References 30 publications

Does Protocol Make a Difference? Comparison of Two Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Cohorts: A Non–protocol-based Follow-up and a Protocol-based Contemporary Follow-up

Does Protocol Make a Difference? Comparison of Two Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance Cohorts: A Non–protocol-based Follow-up and a Protocol-based Contemporary Follow-up

Using biomarkers in patients with positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: 4Kscore predicts the presence of cancer outside the index lesion

Analyzing the learning curves of a novice and an experienced urologist for transrectal magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About