The Experts below are selected from a list of 360 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Yasuhiro Yamada - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Moving away from systematic biopsies: image-guided prostate Biopsy (in-bore Biopsy, cognitive fusion Biopsy, MRUS fusion Biopsy) —literature review
World Journal of Urology, 2020Co-Authors: Yasuhiro Yamada, Atsuko Fujihara, Masatomo Kaneko, Osamu Ukimura, Toru Matsugasumi, Srinivas Vourganti, Leonard Marks, Abhinav Sidana, Laurence Klotz, Georg SalomonAbstract:Objective To compare the detection rate of clinically significant cancer (CSCa) by magnetic resonance imaging-targeted Biopsy (MRI-TB) with that by standard systematic Biopsy (SB) and to evaluate the role of MRI-TB as a replacement from SB in men at clinical risk of prostate cancer. Methods The non-systematic literature was searched for peer-reviewed English-language articles using PubMed, including the prospective paired studies, where the index test was MRI-TB and the comparator text was SB. Also the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are included if one arm was MRI-TB and another arm was SB. Results Eighteen prospective studies used both MRI-TB and TRUS-SB, and eight RCT received one of the tests for prostate cancer detection. In most prospective trials to compare MRI-TB vs. SB, there was no significant difference in any cancer detection rate; however, MRI-TB detected more men with CSCa and fewer men with CISCa than SB. Conclusion MRI-TB is superior to SB in detection of CSCa. Since some significant cancer was detected by SB only, a combination of SB with the TB technique would avoid the underdiagnosis of CSCa.
-
magnetic resonance imaging transrectal ultrasound fusion targeted prostate Biopsy using three dimensional ultrasound based organ tracking technology initial experience in japan
International Journal of Urology, 2019Co-Authors: Yasuhiro Yamada, Atsuko Fujihara, Takumi Shiraishi, Takashi Ueda, Takeshi Yamada, Akihisa Ueno, Yuta Inoue, Masatomo Kaneko, Kazumi Kamoi, Fumiya HongoAbstract:OBJECTIVE To evaluate the impact of magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate Biopsy on the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer using real-time three-dimensional ultrasound-based organ-tracking technology. METHODS The present study was a retrospective review of 262 consecutive patients with prostate-specific antigen of 7.1 ng/mL (interquartile range 4.0-19.8). All patients received pre-Biopsy magnetic resonance imaging and had a suspicious lesion for clinically significant prostate cancer. All patients underwent a combination of systematic Biopsy (6 cores) and three-dimensional ultrasound-based magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy (2 cores). The positive rate of any cancer, positive rate of clinically significant prostate cancer, Gleason score and maximum cancer core length were compared between systematic Biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate Biopsy. RESULTS Overall, the positive rate of any cancer per patient was 61% (160/262) in systematic Biopsy versus 79% (207/262) in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy (P < 0.0001); and that of clinically significant prostate cancer per patient was 46% (120/262) in systematic Biopsy versus 70% (181/262) in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy (P < 0.0001). The positive rate of any cancer per core was 21.7% (330/1523) in systematic Biopsy versus 68.6% (406/592) in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy (P < 0.0001), and that of clinically significant prostate cancer per core was 12.7% (193/1423) in systematic Biopsy versus 60.3% (357/592) in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy (P < 0.0001). Adding systematic Biopsy leads to 13 more cancer cases (5%). The distribution of Gleason score (6/7/8/9/10) was 59/71/23/6/1 in systematic Biopsy versus 48/105/36/15/2 in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy (P = 0.005). The maximum cancer core length was 5 mm (0.5-16) in systematic Biopsy versus 8 mm (1-19 mm) in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS Three-dimensional ultrasound-based magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy seems to be associated with a higher detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer, with fewer cores than systematic random Biopsy. However, significant cancer can still be detected by the systematic technique only. A combination of systematic Biopsy with the targeted Biopsy technique would avoid the underdiagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer.
Fumiya Hongo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
magnetic resonance imaging transrectal ultrasound fusion targeted prostate Biopsy using three dimensional ultrasound based organ tracking technology initial experience in japan
International Journal of Urology, 2019Co-Authors: Yasuhiro Yamada, Atsuko Fujihara, Takumi Shiraishi, Takashi Ueda, Takeshi Yamada, Akihisa Ueno, Yuta Inoue, Masatomo Kaneko, Kazumi Kamoi, Fumiya HongoAbstract:OBJECTIVE To evaluate the impact of magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate Biopsy on the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer using real-time three-dimensional ultrasound-based organ-tracking technology. METHODS The present study was a retrospective review of 262 consecutive patients with prostate-specific antigen of 7.1 ng/mL (interquartile range 4.0-19.8). All patients received pre-Biopsy magnetic resonance imaging and had a suspicious lesion for clinically significant prostate cancer. All patients underwent a combination of systematic Biopsy (6 cores) and three-dimensional ultrasound-based magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy (2 cores). The positive rate of any cancer, positive rate of clinically significant prostate cancer, Gleason score and maximum cancer core length were compared between systematic Biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate Biopsy. RESULTS Overall, the positive rate of any cancer per patient was 61% (160/262) in systematic Biopsy versus 79% (207/262) in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy (P < 0.0001); and that of clinically significant prostate cancer per patient was 46% (120/262) in systematic Biopsy versus 70% (181/262) in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy (P < 0.0001). The positive rate of any cancer per core was 21.7% (330/1523) in systematic Biopsy versus 68.6% (406/592) in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy (P < 0.0001), and that of clinically significant prostate cancer per core was 12.7% (193/1423) in systematic Biopsy versus 60.3% (357/592) in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy (P < 0.0001). Adding systematic Biopsy leads to 13 more cancer cases (5%). The distribution of Gleason score (6/7/8/9/10) was 59/71/23/6/1 in systematic Biopsy versus 48/105/36/15/2 in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy (P = 0.005). The maximum cancer core length was 5 mm (0.5-16) in systematic Biopsy versus 8 mm (1-19 mm) in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS Three-dimensional ultrasound-based magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy seems to be associated with a higher detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer, with fewer cores than systematic random Biopsy. However, significant cancer can still be detected by the systematic technique only. A combination of systematic Biopsy with the targeted Biopsy technique would avoid the underdiagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer.
Christopher L Amling - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
repeat Biopsy strategy in patients with atypical small acinar proliferation or high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia on initial prostate needle Biopsy
The Journal of Urology, 2001Co-Authors: Prodromos G Borboroglu, James L Roberts, Christopher L AmlingAbstract:Purpose: Isolated high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and/or atypical small acinar proliferation on prostate Biopsy increases the risk of identifying cancer on repeat Biopsy. We report the results of repeat prostate Biopsy for high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and/or atypical small acinar proliferation, and propose an optimal repeat Biopsy strategy.Materials and Methods: Of 1,391 men who underwent standard systematic sextant Biopsy of the prostate 137 (9.8%) had isolated high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical small acinar proliferation, including 100 who underwent repeat prostate Biopsy within 12 months of the initial Biopsy.Results: Adenocarcinoma was detected in 47 of the 100 patients who underwent repeat Biopsy. The initial Biopsy site of high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and/or atypical small acinar proliferation matched the sextant location of cancer on repeat Biopsy in 22 cases (47%). Repeat Biopsy directed only to the high grade prostatic int...
-
extensive repeat transrectal ultrasound guided prostate Biopsy in patients with previous benign sextant biopsies
The Journal of Urology, 2000Co-Authors: Prodromos G Borboroglu, Stewart W Comer, Robert H Riffenburgh, Christopher L AmlingAbstract:Purpose: Standard sextant prostate Biopsy may underestimate cancer in men in whom clinical findings are suspicious for localized prostate cancer. We describe our experience with extensive transrectal ultrasound guided prostate Biopsy in men in whom previous sextant Biopsy was negative. Materials and Methods: Between November 1997 and March 1999, 57 men 47 to 72 years old (mean age 61.4) underwent extensive transrectal ultrasound guided Biopsy of the prostate using intravenous sedation at our institution. An average of 22.5 cores (range 15 to 31) were obtained depending on prostate size. Biopsies were obtained from each of 6 sagittal regions, including samples from the far lateral and mid transitional zones. Each patient had undergone at least 1 previous benign transrectal ultrasound guided sextant Biopsy (mean 2.1, range 1 to 4). Indications for repeat Biopsy were persistently elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA) in 89% of the cases, increased PSA velocity in 63%, suspicious free-to-total PSA in 39% and a previous suspicious Biopsy finding in 32%. Clinical factors (PSA, PSA velocity, free-to-total PSA and previous suspicious Biopsy) were analyzed for the ability to predict positive Biopsy, and tumor parameters were assessed pathologically in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Results: Adenocarcinoma was identified in 17 of the 57 men (30%). Biopsy revealed a Gleason score of 6 to 8 (mean 6.4). In 7 of the 17 patients (41%) in whom cancer was identified only 1 Biopsy core was positive. Of the 15 patients in whom previous sextant Biopsy had demonstrated high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical small acinar proliferation extensive Biopsy revealed cancer in 7 (47%). Although serum PSA was higher and free-to-total PSA was lower in those with cancer, the only statistically significant predictor of positive Biopsy was PSA velocity (p Conclusions: Extensive prostate Biopsy identifies significant prostate cancer in many men in whom previous sextant Biopsy was benign. This procedure should be considered when findings are suspicious for adenocarcinoma despite previously negative sextant Biopsy.
Masatomo Kaneko - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Moving away from systematic biopsies: image-guided prostate Biopsy (in-bore Biopsy, cognitive fusion Biopsy, MRUS fusion Biopsy) —literature review
World Journal of Urology, 2020Co-Authors: Yasuhiro Yamada, Atsuko Fujihara, Masatomo Kaneko, Osamu Ukimura, Toru Matsugasumi, Srinivas Vourganti, Leonard Marks, Abhinav Sidana, Laurence Klotz, Georg SalomonAbstract:Objective To compare the detection rate of clinically significant cancer (CSCa) by magnetic resonance imaging-targeted Biopsy (MRI-TB) with that by standard systematic Biopsy (SB) and to evaluate the role of MRI-TB as a replacement from SB in men at clinical risk of prostate cancer. Methods The non-systematic literature was searched for peer-reviewed English-language articles using PubMed, including the prospective paired studies, where the index test was MRI-TB and the comparator text was SB. Also the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are included if one arm was MRI-TB and another arm was SB. Results Eighteen prospective studies used both MRI-TB and TRUS-SB, and eight RCT received one of the tests for prostate cancer detection. In most prospective trials to compare MRI-TB vs. SB, there was no significant difference in any cancer detection rate; however, MRI-TB detected more men with CSCa and fewer men with CISCa than SB. Conclusion MRI-TB is superior to SB in detection of CSCa. Since some significant cancer was detected by SB only, a combination of SB with the TB technique would avoid the underdiagnosis of CSCa.
-
magnetic resonance imaging transrectal ultrasound fusion targeted prostate Biopsy using three dimensional ultrasound based organ tracking technology initial experience in japan
International Journal of Urology, 2019Co-Authors: Yasuhiro Yamada, Atsuko Fujihara, Takumi Shiraishi, Takashi Ueda, Takeshi Yamada, Akihisa Ueno, Yuta Inoue, Masatomo Kaneko, Kazumi Kamoi, Fumiya HongoAbstract:OBJECTIVE To evaluate the impact of magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate Biopsy on the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer using real-time three-dimensional ultrasound-based organ-tracking technology. METHODS The present study was a retrospective review of 262 consecutive patients with prostate-specific antigen of 7.1 ng/mL (interquartile range 4.0-19.8). All patients received pre-Biopsy magnetic resonance imaging and had a suspicious lesion for clinically significant prostate cancer. All patients underwent a combination of systematic Biopsy (6 cores) and three-dimensional ultrasound-based magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy (2 cores). The positive rate of any cancer, positive rate of clinically significant prostate cancer, Gleason score and maximum cancer core length were compared between systematic Biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate Biopsy. RESULTS Overall, the positive rate of any cancer per patient was 61% (160/262) in systematic Biopsy versus 79% (207/262) in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy (P < 0.0001); and that of clinically significant prostate cancer per patient was 46% (120/262) in systematic Biopsy versus 70% (181/262) in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy (P < 0.0001). The positive rate of any cancer per core was 21.7% (330/1523) in systematic Biopsy versus 68.6% (406/592) in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy (P < 0.0001), and that of clinically significant prostate cancer per core was 12.7% (193/1423) in systematic Biopsy versus 60.3% (357/592) in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy (P < 0.0001). Adding systematic Biopsy leads to 13 more cancer cases (5%). The distribution of Gleason score (6/7/8/9/10) was 59/71/23/6/1 in systematic Biopsy versus 48/105/36/15/2 in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy (P = 0.005). The maximum cancer core length was 5 mm (0.5-16) in systematic Biopsy versus 8 mm (1-19 mm) in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS Three-dimensional ultrasound-based magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy seems to be associated with a higher detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer, with fewer cores than systematic random Biopsy. However, significant cancer can still be detected by the systematic technique only. A combination of systematic Biopsy with the targeted Biopsy technique would avoid the underdiagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer.
Atsuko Fujihara - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Moving away from systematic biopsies: image-guided prostate Biopsy (in-bore Biopsy, cognitive fusion Biopsy, MRUS fusion Biopsy) —literature review
World Journal of Urology, 2020Co-Authors: Yasuhiro Yamada, Atsuko Fujihara, Masatomo Kaneko, Osamu Ukimura, Toru Matsugasumi, Srinivas Vourganti, Leonard Marks, Abhinav Sidana, Laurence Klotz, Georg SalomonAbstract:Objective To compare the detection rate of clinically significant cancer (CSCa) by magnetic resonance imaging-targeted Biopsy (MRI-TB) with that by standard systematic Biopsy (SB) and to evaluate the role of MRI-TB as a replacement from SB in men at clinical risk of prostate cancer. Methods The non-systematic literature was searched for peer-reviewed English-language articles using PubMed, including the prospective paired studies, where the index test was MRI-TB and the comparator text was SB. Also the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are included if one arm was MRI-TB and another arm was SB. Results Eighteen prospective studies used both MRI-TB and TRUS-SB, and eight RCT received one of the tests for prostate cancer detection. In most prospective trials to compare MRI-TB vs. SB, there was no significant difference in any cancer detection rate; however, MRI-TB detected more men with CSCa and fewer men with CISCa than SB. Conclusion MRI-TB is superior to SB in detection of CSCa. Since some significant cancer was detected by SB only, a combination of SB with the TB technique would avoid the underdiagnosis of CSCa.
-
magnetic resonance imaging transrectal ultrasound fusion targeted prostate Biopsy using three dimensional ultrasound based organ tracking technology initial experience in japan
International Journal of Urology, 2019Co-Authors: Yasuhiro Yamada, Atsuko Fujihara, Takumi Shiraishi, Takashi Ueda, Takeshi Yamada, Akihisa Ueno, Yuta Inoue, Masatomo Kaneko, Kazumi Kamoi, Fumiya HongoAbstract:OBJECTIVE To evaluate the impact of magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate Biopsy on the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer using real-time three-dimensional ultrasound-based organ-tracking technology. METHODS The present study was a retrospective review of 262 consecutive patients with prostate-specific antigen of 7.1 ng/mL (interquartile range 4.0-19.8). All patients received pre-Biopsy magnetic resonance imaging and had a suspicious lesion for clinically significant prostate cancer. All patients underwent a combination of systematic Biopsy (6 cores) and three-dimensional ultrasound-based magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy (2 cores). The positive rate of any cancer, positive rate of clinically significant prostate cancer, Gleason score and maximum cancer core length were compared between systematic Biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate Biopsy. RESULTS Overall, the positive rate of any cancer per patient was 61% (160/262) in systematic Biopsy versus 79% (207/262) in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy (P < 0.0001); and that of clinically significant prostate cancer per patient was 46% (120/262) in systematic Biopsy versus 70% (181/262) in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy (P < 0.0001). The positive rate of any cancer per core was 21.7% (330/1523) in systematic Biopsy versus 68.6% (406/592) in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy (P < 0.0001), and that of clinically significant prostate cancer per core was 12.7% (193/1423) in systematic Biopsy versus 60.3% (357/592) in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy (P < 0.0001). Adding systematic Biopsy leads to 13 more cancer cases (5%). The distribution of Gleason score (6/7/8/9/10) was 59/71/23/6/1 in systematic Biopsy versus 48/105/36/15/2 in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy (P = 0.005). The maximum cancer core length was 5 mm (0.5-16) in systematic Biopsy versus 8 mm (1-19 mm) in magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS Three-dimensional ultrasound-based magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion-targeted Biopsy seems to be associated with a higher detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer, with fewer cores than systematic random Biopsy. However, significant cancer can still be detected by the systematic technique only. A combination of systematic Biopsy with the targeted Biopsy technique would avoid the underdiagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer.
