Investigation of the Effectiveness of Prostate Biopsy Density in Predicting Prostate Cancer Under Cognitive and Systematic Biopsy in Multi-Parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI)

References

• Hodge -K-K, Mcneal J-E, Stamey T-A. Ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the palpably abnormal prostate. J Urol. 1989;142(1):66–70. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(17)38663-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eskew L-A, Bare R-L, Mccullough D-L. Systematic 5 region prostate biopsy is superior to sextant method for diagnosing carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol. 1997;157(1):199–202; discussion 202.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stamatiou K, Alevizos A, Karanasiou V, et al. Impact of additional sampling in the TRUS-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Urol Int. 2007;78(4):313–317. doi:10.1159/000100834
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin PR, Cool DW, Fenster A, Ward AD. A comparison of prostate tumor targeting strategies using magnetic resonance imaging-targeted, transrectal ultrasound-guided fusion biopsy. Med Phys. 2018;45(3):1018–1028. doi:10.1002/mp.12769
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turkbey B, Mani H, Shah V, et al. Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. J Urol. 2011;186(5):1818–1824. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.07.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baco E, Rud E, Eri LM, et al. A randomized controlled trial to assess and compare the outcomes of two-core prostate biopsy guided by fused magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound images and traditional 12-core systematic biopsy. Europ urol. 2015;69(1):149–156. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.03.041
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borkowetz A, Hadaschik B, Platzek I, et al. Prospective comparison of transperineal magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion biopsy and transrectal systematic biopsy in biopsy-naïve patients. BJU Int. 2017;121(1):53–60. doi:10.1111/bju.14017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ito K, Ohi M, Yamamoto T, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of the age-adjusted and prostate volume-adjusted biopsy method in males with prostate specific antigen levels of 4.1–10.0 ng/mL. Cancer. 2002;95(10):2112–2119. doi:10.1002/cncr.10941
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone NN, Crawford ED, Skouteris VM, et al. The ratio of the number of biopsy specimens to prostate volume (Biopsy Density) greater than 1.5 improves the prostate cancer detection rate in men undergoing transperineal biopsy of the prostate. J Urol. 2019;202(2):264–271. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000000204
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. Ca Cancer J Clin. 2023;73(1):17–48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gayet M, van der Aa A, Beerlage HP, Schrier BP, Mulders PF, Wijkstra H. The value of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography (MRI/US)-fusion biopsy platforms in prostate cancer detection: a systematic review. BJU Int. 2015;117(3):392–400.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radtke JP, Kuru TH, Boxler S, et al. Comparative analysis of transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy with magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion guidance. J Urol. 2014;193(1):87–94. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2014.07.098
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miah S, Eldred-Evans D, Simmons LA, et al. Patient reported outcome measures for transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies in the PICTURE study. J Urol. 2018;200(6):1235–1240. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2018.06.033
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong A, Hemmingway S, Wetherell D, Dias B, Zargar H. Outpatient transperineal prostate biopsy under local anaesthesia is safe, well tolerated and feasible. ANZ J Surg. 2022;92(6):1480–1485. doi:10.1111/ans.17593
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saito K, Washino S, Nakamura Y, et al. Transperineal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy is safe even when patients are on combination antiplatelet and/or anticoagulation therapy. BMC Urol. 2017;17(1):53. doi:10.1186/s12894-017-0245-z
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wang L, Wang X, Zhao W, et al. A retrospective comparison between transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer. BMC Urol. 2017;19:55–59.
   Google Scholar
• Pepe P, Aragona F. Prostate biopsy: results and advantages of the transperineal approach--twenty-year experience of a single center. World J Urol. 2013;32(2):373–377.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savin Z, Dekalo S, Marom R, et al. Anterior and apical samplings during transperineal image-guided prostate biopsy. Urol Oncol. 2021;40(1):5.e15–5.e21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rai BP, Mayerhofer C, Somani BK, Kallidonis P, Nagele U, Tokas T. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion-guided transperineal versus magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion-guided transrectal prostate biopsy-a systematic review. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021;4(6):904–913.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koparal MY, Sözen TS, Karşıyakalı N, et al. Comparison of transperineal and transrectal targeted prostate biopsy using Mahalanobis distance matching within propensity score caliper method: a multicenter study of Turkish Urooncology Association. Prostate. 2021;82(4):425–432.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsieh PF, Chang TY, Lin WC, et al. A comparative study of transperineal software-assisted magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion biopsy and transrectal cognitive fusion biopsy of the prostate. BMC Urol. 2022;22(1):72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang L, Wang X, Zhao W, et al. Surface-projection-based transperineal cognitive fusion targeted biopsy of the prostate: an original technique with a good cancer detection rate. BMC Urol. 2019;19(1):107. doi:10.1186/s12894-019-0535-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar