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

M. Gayet; A. van der Aa; P. Schmitz; H. Beerlage; B.P. Schrier; P.F.A. Mulders; M. Mischi; H. Wijkstra

doi:10.1007/s00345-016-1775-9

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

M. Gayet, A. van der Aa, P. Schmitz, H. Beerlage, B.P. Schrier, P.F.A. Mulders, M. Mischi, H. Wijkstra

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

7 Citations (Scopus)

348 Downloads (Pure)

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.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1255-1260
Number of pages	6
Journal	World Journal of Urology
Volume	34
Issue number	9
Early online date	4 Feb 2016
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1775-9
Publication status	Published - Sept 2016

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1007/s00345-016-1775-9

submitted manuscriptSubmitted manuscript, 279 KB

Cite this

@article{d877871a32ab4a3eaaa9cbfc4cf5ac6a,

title = "3D Navigo{\texttrademark} versus TRUS-guided prostate biopsy in prostate cancer detection",

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{\texttrademark} 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{\texttrademark} 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{\texttrademark} system. There was no statistically significant difference in PCa detection (39.9 vs 46.2 % with Navigo{\texttrademark} system and TRUS, respectively). Using the Navigo{\texttrademark} 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{\texttrademark} system compared to conventional 2D TRUS regarding PCa detection in biopsy-naive men and men with prior negative biopsy.",

author = "M. Gayet and {van der Aa}, A. and P. Schmitz and H. Beerlage and B.P. Schrier and P.F.A. Mulders and M. Mischi and H. Wijkstra",

year = "2016",

month = sep,

doi = "10.1007/s00345-016-1775-9",

language = "English",

volume = "34",

pages = "1255--1260",

journal = "World Journal of Urology",

issn = "0724-4983",

publisher = "Springer",

number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - 3D Navigo™ versus TRUS-guided prostate biopsy in prostate cancer detection

AU - Gayet, M.

AU - van der Aa, A.

AU - Schmitz, P.

AU - Beerlage, H.

AU - Schrier, B.P.

AU - Mulders, P.F.A.

AU - Mischi, M.

AU - Wijkstra, H.

PY - 2016/9

Y1 - 2016/9

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

U2 - 10.1007/s00345-016-1775-9

DO - 10.1007/s00345-016-1775-9

M3 - Article

C2 - 26847183

SN - 0724-4983

VL - 34

SP - 1255

EP - 1260

JO - World Journal of Urology

JF - World Journal of Urology

IS - 9

ER -

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

Abstract

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this