The DOI matches its Crossref record.
MRI–ultrasound fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsy
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Prostate cancer (CaP) may be detected on MRI. Fusion of MRI with ultrasound allows urologists to progress from blind, systematic biopsies to biopsies, which are mapped, targeted and tracked. We herein review the current status of prostate biopsy via MRI/ultrasound fusion. RECENT FINDINGS: Three methods of fusing MRI for targeted biopsy have been recently described: MRI-ultrasound fusion, MRI-MRI fusion ('in-bore' biopsy) and cognitive fusion. Supportive data are emerging for the fusion devices, two of which received US Food and Drug Administration approval in the past 5 years: Artemis (Eigen, USA) and Urostation (Koelis, France). Working with the Artemis device in more than 600 individuals, we found that targeted biopsies are two to three times more sensitive for detection of CaP than nontargeted systematic biopsies; nearly 40% of men with Gleason score of at least 7 CaP are diagnosed only by targeted biopsy; nearly 100% of men with highly suspicious MRI lesions are diagnosed with CaP; ability to return to a prior biopsy site is highly accurate (within 1.2 ± 1.1 mm); and targeted and systematic biopsies are twice as accurate as systematic biopsies alone in predicting whole-organ disease. SUMMARY: In the future, MRI-ultrasound fusion for lesion targeting is likely to result in fewer and more accurate prostate biopsies than the present use of systematic biopsies with ultrasound guidance alone.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Rosenkrantz, A. B., Verma, S., Choyke, P., Eberhardt, S. C., Eggener, S. E., Gaitonde, K., Haider, M. A., Margolis, D. J., Marks, L. S., Pinto, P., et al. (2016) · Journal of Urology · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.079 · Cited by 353
Self-citationAdvancements in standardizing radiological reports: a comprehensive review
Pesapane, F., Tantrige, P., De Marco, P., Carriero, S., Zugni, F., Nicosia, L., Bozzini, A. C., Rotili, A., Latronico, A., Abbate, F., et al. (2023) · Medicina · doi:10.3390/medicina59091679 · Cited by 50
Azizi, S., Bayat, S., Yan, P., Tahmasebi, A., Nir, G., Kwak, J. T., Xu, S., Wilson, S., Iczkowski, K. A., Lucia, M. S., et al. (2017) · International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery · doi:10.1007/s11548-017-1627-0 · Cited by 47
Azizi, S., Imani, F., Ghavidel, S., Tahmasebi, A., Kwak, J. T., Xu, S., Turkbey, B., Choyke, P., Pinto, P., Wood, B., et al. (2016) · International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery · doi:10.1007/s11548-016-1395-2 · Cited by 45
Metadata
- Authors
- Marks, L., Young, S., & Natarajan, S.
- Venue
- Current Opinion in Urology
- Published
- 2013-01
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 43-50
- ISSN
- 0963-0643 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2019196989
- Cited by
- 248
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: MRI–ultrasound fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/mou.0b013e32835ad3ee
- The paper
- Marks, L., Young, S., & Natarajan, S. (2013). MRI–ultrasound fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsy. Current Opinion in Urology. https://doi.org/10.1097/mou.0b013e32835ad3ee
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.