Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Eine systematische Evidenzanalyse zum Vergleich MRT-geführte Biopsie vs. systematische Biopsie in der Diagnostik des Prostatakarzinoms

Systematic evidence analysis for comparison of MRI-targeted biopsy versus systematic biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer

  • Evidenzbasierte Medizin
  • Published:
Der Urologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

CAD:

„computer-aided diagnosis“, computerunterstützte Diagnostik

DR:

„detection ratio“, Detektionsverhältnis

KI:

Konfidenzintervall

MRT-GB:

MRT-geführte Biopsie

PCA3:

„prostate cancer antigen 3“

PIRADS:

„prostate imaging-reporting and data system“

RCT:

Randomisierte kontrollierte Studie

SB:

Sättigungsbiopsie

Literatur

  1. Drost FH et al (2019) Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:Cd12663

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Donovan JL et al (2016) Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 375(15):1425–1437

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Miah S et al (2018) Patient reported outcome measures for transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies in the PICTURE study. J Urol 200(6):1235–1240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. de Gorski A et al (2015) Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion targeted biopsies to diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer in enlarged compared to smaller prostates. J Urol 194(3):669–673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Filson CP et al (2016) Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: The role of systematic and targeted biopsies. Cancer 122(6):884–892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Schoots IG et al (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 68(3):438–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Siddiqui MM et al (2015) Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 313(4):390–397

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Rouviere O et al (2019) Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 20(1):100–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. van der Leest M et al (2019) Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naive men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol 75(4):570–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ahmed HU et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389(10071):815–822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kasivisvanathan V et al (2018) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 378(19):1767–1777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hess J (2016) STHLM3 test could help improve prostate cancer screening. Urologe A 55(5):660

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Falzarano SM et al (2015) Novel biomarkers and genomic tests in prostate cancer: a critical analysis. Minerva Urol Nefrol 67(3):211–231

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rosenkrantz AB et al (2016) Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS version 2 lexicon: A multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology 280(3):793–804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Le MH et al (2017) Automated diagnosis of prostate cancer in multi-parametric MRI based on multimodal convolutional neural networks. Phys Med Biol 62(16):6497–6514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lemaitre G et al (2017) Computer-aided detection for prostate cancer detection based on multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2017:3138–3141

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang J et al (2017) Machine learning-based analysis of MR radiomics can help to improve the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS v2 in clinically relevant prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 27(10):4082–4090

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medizinische Fakultät, Klinik für Urologie, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Hugstetterstr. 55, 79106, Freiburg, Deutschland

    A. Sigle,  C. A. Jilg &  A. Miernik FEBU, MHBA

  2. UroEvidence@Deutsche Gesellschaft für Urologie, Berlin, Deutschland

    S. Schmidt &  A. Miernik FEBU, MHBA

Authors
  1. A. Sigle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. A. Jilg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Schmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Miernik FEBU, MHBA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Miernik FEBU, MHBA.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

A. Miernik und S. Schmidt sind Mitglieder von UroEvidence bei der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Urologie. A. Sigle, C. A. Jilg, S. Schmidt und A. Miernik geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autoren keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.

Additional information

Die Zusammenfassung ist eine Übersetzung des Abstracts der Originalpublikation.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sigle, A., Jilg, C.A., Schmidt, S. et al. Eine systematische Evidenzanalyse zum Vergleich MRT-geführte Biopsie vs. systematische Biopsie in der Diagnostik des Prostatakarzinoms. Urologe 59, 185–188 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-019-01102-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-019-01102-x

Search

Navigation