A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

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. | LitMetric

Purpose: Magnetic 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 Methods: We 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).

Results: A 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.

Conclusions: Magnetic 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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.05.090DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

magnetic resonance
32
resonance imaging
32
imaging guided
20
transrectal ultrasound
20
ultrasound guided
16
prostate specific
16
prostate cancer
16
guided in-bore
12
prostate
12
biopsy
12

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!