% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Saner:181903,
      author       = {Y. M. Saner and M. Wiesenfarth$^*$ and V. Weru$^*$ and B.
                      Ladyzhensky and S. Tschirdewahn and L. Püllen and D.
                      Bonekamp$^*$ and H. Reis and U. Krafft and J. Heß and C.
                      Kesch and C. Darr and M. Forsting and A. Wetter and L.
                      Umutlu and J. Haubold and B. Hadaschik and J. P. Radtke$^*$},
      title        = {{D}etection of {C}linically {S}ignificant {P}rostate
                      {C}ancer {U}sing {T}argeted {B}iopsy with {F}our {C}ores
                      {V}ersus {T}arget {S}aturation {B}iopsy with {N}ine {C}ores
                      in {T}ransperineal {P}rostate {F}usion {B}iopsy: {A}
                      {P}rospective {R}andomized {T}rial.},
      journal      = {European urology oncology},
      volume       = {6},
      number       = {1},
      issn         = {2588-9311},
      address      = {Amsterdam},
      publisher    = {Elsevier},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2022-02293},
      pages        = {49-55},
      year         = {2023},
      note         = {#LA:E010# / 2023 Feb;6(1):49-55},
      abstract     = {Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and
                      targeted biopsy (TB) facilitate accurate detection of
                      clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC). However, it
                      remains unclear how targeted cores should be applied for
                      accurate diagnosis of csPC.To assess csPC detection rates
                      for two target-directed MRI/transrectal ultrasonography
                      (TRUS) fusion biopsy approaches, conventional TB and target
                      saturation biopsy (TS).This was a prospective single-center
                      study of outcomes for transperineal MRI/TRUS fusion biopsies
                      for 170 men. Half of the men (n = 85) were randomized to
                      conventional TB with four cores per lesion and half (n = 85)
                      to TS with nine cores. Biopsies were performed by three
                      experienced board-certified urologists.PC and csPC
                      (International Society of Urological Pathology grade group
                      ≥2) detection rates for systematic biopsy (SB), TB, and TS
                      were analyzed using McNemar's test for intrapatient
                      comparisons and Fisher's exact test for TS versus TB. A
                      combination of targeted biopsy (TS or TB) and SB served as
                      the reference.According to the reference, csPC was diagnosed
                      for 57 men in the TS group and 36 men in the TB group. Of
                      these, TS detected 57/57 csPC cases and TB detected 33/36
                      csPC cases (p = 0.058). Detection of Gleason grade group 1
                      disease was 10/12 cases with TS and 8/17 cases with TB (p =
                      0.055). In addition, TS detected $97\%$ of 63 csPC lesions,
                      compared to $86\%$ with TB (p = 0.1). Limitations include
                      the single-center design, the limited generalizability owing
                      to the transperineal biopsy route, the lack of central
                      review of pathology and radical prostatectomy correlation,
                      and uneven distributions of csPC prevalence, Prostate
                      Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 5 lesions, men
                      with two or more PI-RADS ≥3 lesions, and prostate-specific
                      antigen density between the groups, which may have affected
                      the results.In our study, rates of csPC detection did not
                      significantly differ between TS and TB.In this study, we
                      investigated two targeted approaches for taking prostate
                      biopsy samples after observation of suspicious lesions on
                      prostate scans. We found that the rates of detection of
                      prostate cancer did not significantly differ between the two
                      approaches.},
      keywords     = {Detection accuracy (Other) / Fusion biopsy (Other) /
                      Magnetic resonance imaging (Other) / Prostate cancer (Other)
                      / Target saturation (Other) / Targeted biopsy (Other) /
                      Transrectal ultrasound (Other)},
      cin          = {C060 / E010},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)C060-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)E010-20160331},
      pnm          = {315 - Bildgebung und Radioonkologie (POF4-315)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-315},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:36175281},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.euo.2022.08.005},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/181903},
}