4.5 Review

MRI-targeted prostate biopsy: a review of technique and results

Journal

NATURE REVIEWS UROLOGY
Volume 10, Issue 10, Pages 589-597

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nrurol.2013.196

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health Research University College of London Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, UK
  2. Wellcome Trust, UK
  3. University College of London Hospital Trustees
  4. National Institutes of Health Research University College of London Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre
  5. National Institute for Health Research [09/22/67] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is of interest for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer and mpMRI-targeted biopsies are being used increasingly in clinical practice. Target acquisition is performed using a range of magnet strengths and varying combinations of anatomical and functional sequences. Target identification at the time of biopsy can be carried out in the MRI scanner (in-bore biopsy) or, more commonly, the MRI-target is biopsied under ultrasonographic guidance. Many groups use cognitive or visual registration, whereby the biopsy target is identified on MRI and ultrasonography is subsequently used to direct the needle to the same location. Other groups use registration software to show prebiopsy MRI data on real-time ultrasonography. The reporting of histological results in MRI-targeted biopsy studies varies greatly. The most useful reports compare the detection of clinically significant disease in standard cores versus mpMRI-targeted cores in the same cohort of men, as recommended by the STAndards of Reporting for MRI-Targeted biopsy studies (START) consensus panel. Further evidence is needed before an mpMRI-targeted strategy can be recommended as the standard intervention for men at risk of prostate cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available