Advertisement

Uro-News

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 28–33 | Cite as

Drei Jahre Erfahrung

Fusionsbiopsie in der Praxis des niedergelassenen Urologen

  • Ulrich Mandel
  • Daniel Rakowitz
  • Frank Emmert
  • Wolfgang Gelmetti
  • Valentina Câmpean-Hurdugaciu
Fortbildung
  • 16 Downloads

Die Einführung der Fusionsbiopsie bedeutet für eine Praxis wie auch für eine Klinik einen deutlichen finanziellen und personellen Mehraufwand. Die Anschaffung der Technologie lohnt sich aus wirtschaftlicher wie auch diagnostischer Sicht dennoch.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie der Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft e.V. S3-Leitlinie Prostatakarzinom 5.0. 2018; https://www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Downloads/Leitlinien/Prostata_5_0/LL_Prostata_Langversion_5.0.pdf
  2. 2.
    Kasivisvanathan V. et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018; 378: 1767–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ahmed H.U. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017; 389: 815–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Faria R. et al. Optimising the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in the Era of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis Based on the Prostate MR Imaging Study (PROMIS). Eur Urol. 2018; 73: 23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Feutren T. et al. Prostate irradiation with focal dose escalation to the intraprostatic dominant nodule: a systematic review. Prostate Int. 2018; 6: 75–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weinreb J.C. et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016; 69: 16–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sathianathen N.J. et al. Which scores need a core? An evaluation of MR-targeted biopsy yield by PIRADS score across different biopsy indications. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2018Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mathur S. et al. Correlation of 3T multiparametric prostate MRI using prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS) version 2 with biopsy as reference standard. Abdom Radiol, 2018.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Loeb S. et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013; 64: 876–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huang H. et al. Comparison of the complications of traditional 12 cores transrectal prostate biopsy with image fusion guided transperineal prostate biopsy. BMC Urol. 2016; 16: 68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meng X. et al. The Institutional Learning Curve of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Prostate Biopsy: Temporal Improvements in Cancer Detection during 4 Years. J Urol. 2018Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Calio B. et al. Changes in prostate cancer detection rate of MRI-TRUS fusion vs systematic biopsy over time: evidence of a learning curve. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017; 20: 436–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tadtayev S. et al. The association of level of practical experience in transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsy with its diagnostic outcome. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2017; 99: 218–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    European Society of Urogenital Radiology. PIRADS vs2. 2018 Fri 20 Feb 2015; http://www.esur.org/fileadmin/content/user_upload/PIRADS_v2_20141223.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ulrich Mandel
    • 1
  • Daniel Rakowitz
    • 2
  • Frank Emmert
    • 2
  • Wolfgang Gelmetti
    • 2
  • Valentina Câmpean-Hurdugaciu
    • 2
  1. 1.AnsbachDeutschland
  2. 2.

Personalised recommendations