4.1 Review

MRI-ultrasound fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsy

Journal

CURRENT OPINION IN UROLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 43-50

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e32835ad3ee

Keywords

MRI-ultrasound fusion; prostate cancer; prostate imaging; targeted biopsy

Funding

  1. National Cancer Institute [R01CA158627]
  2. Beckman Coulter Foundation
  3. Jean Perkins Foundation
  4. Steven C. Gordon Family Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose of review Prostate cancer (CaP) may be detected on MRI. Fusion of MRI with ultrasound allows urologists to progress from blind, systematic biopsies to biopsies, which are mapped, targeted and tracked. We herein review the current status of prostate biopsy via MRI/ultrasound fusion. Recent findings Three methods of fusing MRI for targeted biopsy have been recently described: MRI-ultrasound fusion, MRI-MRI fusion ('in-bore' biopsy) and cognitive fusion. Supportive data are emerging for the fusion devices, two of which received US Food and Drug Administration approval in the past 5 years: Artemis (Eigen, USA) and Urostation (Koelis, France). Working with the Artemis device in more than 600 individuals, we found that targeted biopsies are two to three times more sensitive for detection of CaP than nontargeted systematic biopsies; nearly 40% of men with Gleason score of at least 7 CaP are diagnosed only by targeted biopsy; nearly 100% of men with highly suspicious MRI lesions are diagnosed with CaP; ability to return to a prior biopsy site is highly accurate (within 1.2 +/- 1.1 mm); and targeted and systematic biopsies are twice as accurate as systematic biopsies alone in predicting whole-organ disease. Summary In the future, MRI-ultrasound fusion for lesion targeting is likely to result in fewer and more accurate prostate biopsies than the present use of systematic biopsies with ultrasound guidance alone.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available