Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

3D Navigo™ versus TRUS-guided prostate biopsy in prostate cancer detection

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

To overcome the limitations regarding transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies in prostate cancer (PCa) detection, there is a focus on new imaging technologies. The Navigo™ system (UC-care, Israel) uses regular TRUS images and electrospatial monitoring to generate a 3D model of the prostate. The aim of this study was to compare cancer detection rates between the Navigo™ system and conventional TRUS, in patients without a history of PCa.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study by collecting data from all patients who underwent 12-core prostate biopsies from lateral peripheral zones between September 2013 and February 2015 at the Jeroen Bosch Hospital in ‘s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands).

Results

A total of 325 patients met our inclusion criteria. 77.8 % of biopsy sessions were performed using the Navigo™ system. There was no statistically significant difference in PCa detection (39.9 vs 46.2 % with Navigo™ system and TRUS, respectively). Using the Navigo™ system for taking prostate biopsies proved not to be associated with the presence of PCa at biopsy, likewise for clinically significant PCa and for both subgroups.

Limitations

The limitations of the study include its retrospective design, the limited number of patients in the conventional TRUS group, the statistically significant different number of biopsy sessions and the ones performed by an advanced physician in both groups.

Conclusion

In our study, there is no added value of 3D TRUS using Navigo™ system compared to conventional 2D TRUS regarding PCa detection in biopsy-naive men and men with prior negative biopsy.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T et al (2014) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent—update 2013. Eur Urol 65(1):124–137. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.09.046

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Roehl KA, Antenor JA, Catalona WJ (2002) Serial biopsy results in prostate cancer screening study. J Urol 167(6):2435–2439. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64999-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Guichard G, Larre S, Gallina A, Lazar A, Faucon H, Chemama S et al (2007) Extended 21-sample needle biopsy protocol for diagnosis of prostate cancer in 1000 consecutive patients. Eur Urol 52(2):430–435. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.02.062

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ploussard G, Salomon L, Xylinas E, Allory Y, Vordos D, Hoznek A et al (2010) Pathological findings and prostate specific antigen outcomes after radical prostatectomy in men eligible for active surveillance—Does the risk of misclassification vary according to biopsy criteria? J Urol 183(2):539–544. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bul M, Zhu X, Rannikko A, Staerman F, Valdagni R, Pickles T et al (2012) Radical prostatectomy for low-risk prostate cancer following initial active surveillance: results from a prospective observational study. Eur Urol 62(2):195–200. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bax J, Cool D, Gardi L, Knight K, Smith D, Montreuil J et al (2008) Mechanically assisted 3D ultrasound guided prostate biopsy system. Med Phys 35(12):5397–5410. doi:10.1118/1.3002415

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cool D, Downey D, Izawa J, Chin J, Fenster A (2006) 3D prostate model formation from non-parallel 2D ultrasound biopsy images. Med Image Anal 10(6):875–887. doi:10.1016/j.media.2006.09.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cool D, Sherebrin S, Izawa J, Chin J, Fenster A (2008) Design and evaluation of a 3D transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy system. Med Phys 35(10):4695–4707. doi:10.1118/1.2977542

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cool DW, Connolly MJ, Sherebrin S, Eagleson R, Izawa JI, Amann J et al (2010) Repeat prostate biopsy accuracy: simulator-based comparison of two- and three-dimensional transrectal US modalities. Radiology 254(2):587–594. doi:10.1148/radiol.2542090674

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sedelaar JP, van Roermund JG, van Leenders GL, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Wijkstra H, de la Rosette JJ (2001) Three-dimensional grayscale ultrasound: evaluation of prostate cancer compared with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology 57(5):914–920. doi:10.1016/S0090-4295(00)01115-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Peltier A, Aoun F, El-Khoury F, Hawaux E, Limani K, Narahari K et al (2013) 3D versus 2d systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: higher cancer detection rate in clinical practice. Prostate Cancer 2013:783243. doi:10.1155/2013/783243

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Cohen M (2012) 3D TRUS prostate biopsy recording and guidance—the Navigo system. Eur Urol 11(1):816. doi:10.1016/S1569-9056(12)60813-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Twisk JWR (2007) Introductie in de toegepaste biostatistiek. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hori S, Fuge O, Trabucchi K, Donaldson P, McLoughlin J (2013) Can a trained non-physician provider perform transrectal ultrasound-guided prostatic biopsies as effectively as an experienced urologist? BJU Int 111(5):739–744. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11294.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. El Fegoun AB, El Atat R, Choudat L, El Helou E, Hermieu JF, Dominique S et al (2013) The learning curve of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies: implications for training programs. Urology 81(1):12–15. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2012.06.084

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gayet M, van der Aa A, Beerlage HP, Schrier BP, Mulders PF, Wijkstra H (2015) The value of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography (MRI/US)-fusion biopsy platforms in prostate cancer detection: a systematic review. BJU Int. doi:10.1111/bju.13247

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. van Hove A, Savoie PH, Maurin C, Brunelle S, Gravis G, Salem N et al (2014) Comparison of image-guided targeted biopsies versus systematic randomized biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic literature review of well-designed studies. World J Urol 32(4):847–858. doi:10.1007/s00345-014-1332-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The present study was undertaken with a research grant from Astellas Pharma Netherlands B. V. Astellas has not influenced the content of this manuscript.

Authors’ contribution

A van der Aa was involved in data collection and manuscript writing; H. Beerlage, M. Mischi, P. Mulders, B. Schrier and H. Wijkstra was involved in protocol/project development; M. Gayet was involved in data collection and management, data analysis and manuscript writing; and P. Schmitz was involved in data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, Post office box 90153, 5200 ME, ‘s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands

    Maudy Gayet, Anouk van der Aa, Peter Schmitz, Harrie P. Beerlage & Bart Ph. Schrier

  2. Department of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Maudy Gayet, Anouk van der Aa, Harrie P. Beerlage, Massimo Mischi & Hessel Wijkstra

  3. Department of Urology, AMC University Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Hessel Wijkstra

  4. Department of Urology, Radboudumc University Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Peter F. A. Mulders

Authors
  1. Maudy Gayet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anouk van der Aa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Schmitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Harrie P. Beerlage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bart Ph. Schrier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Peter F. A. Mulders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Massimo Mischi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hessel Wijkstra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maudy Gayet.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gayet, M., van der Aa, A., Schmitz, P. et al. 3D Navigo™ versus TRUS-guided prostate biopsy in prostate cancer detection. World J Urol 34, 1255–1260 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1775-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1775-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation