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

  • 24 Accesses

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA



„computer-aided diagnosis“, computerunterstützte Diagnostik


„detection ratio“, Detektionsverhältnis




MRT-geführte Biopsie


„prostate cancer antigen 3“


„prostate imaging-reporting and data system“


Randomisierte kontrollierte Studie




  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 11.

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

  12. 12.

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

  13. 13.

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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Prof. Dr. Dr. med. univ. A. Miernik FEBU, MHBA.

Ethics declarations


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

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 (2020) doi:10.1007/s00120-019-01102-x

Download citation