@article {Singh2007a,
	title = {Patient selection determines the prostate cancer yield of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging-guided transrectal biopsies in a closed 3-Tesla scanner},
	journal = {British Journal of Urology international},
	volume = {101},
	number = {2},
	year = {2007},
	month = {Jan},
	pages = {181{\textendash}185},
	publisher = {Radiation Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892-1642, USA Anurag Singh@RoswellPark org},
	abstract = {<p>OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cancer yield of transrectal prostate biopsies in a 3-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner in patients with elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels, recent negative transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsies PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between July 2004, November 2005, patients with at least one previous negative prostate biopsy within the previous 12 months had MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate in a 3-T MRI scanner Patients with previous positive biopsies for cancer were excluded Target selection was based on T2-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) imaging studies RESULTS: Thirteen patients were eligible; their median (range) age was 61 (47-74) years, PSA value 4 90 (1 3-12 3) ng/mL Most patients had one previous negative biopsy (range 1-4) Four patients had a family history of prostate cancer There were 37 distinct targets based on T2-weighted imaging Fifteen of 16 distinct DCE abnormalities were co-localized with a target based on T2-weighted imaging Despite this correlation, only one of 13 patients had a directed biopsy positive for cancer Including systematic biopsies, two of 13 patients had a biopsy positive for prostate cancer One patient had prostate intraepithelial neoplasia, one had atypical glands in the specimen CONCLUSION: The prostate-cancer yield of transrectal biopsies in a 3-T MRI scanner, among patients with recent negative TRUS-guided prostate biopsies, is similar to repeat systematic TRUS-guided biopsy DCE correlates with T2-imaging but does not appear to improve prostate cancer yield in this population</p>
},
	keywords = {Aged, Biopsy, blood, Cohort Studies, Contrast Media, diagnosis, Digital Rectal Examination, Humans, Interventional, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, methods, Middle Aged, Needle, pathology, Patient Selection, Predictive Value of Tests, Prostate, Prostate-Specific Antigen, Prostatic Neoplasms, Sensitivity, Specificity, standards, Ultrasonography},
	doi = {10 1111/j 1464-410X 2007 07219 x},
	url = {http://dx doi org/10 1111/j 1464-410X 2007 07219 x},
	author = {Anurag K. Singh and Axel Krieger and Jean-Baptiste Lattouf and Peter Guion and R.L. Grubb III and Paul Albert and Greg Metzger and Karen Ullman and Sharon Smith and Gabor Fichtinger and Iclal Ocak and Peter Choyke and Cynthia Menard and Jonathan Coleman}
}
@article {Blumenfeld2007,
	title = {Transperineal prostate biopsy under magnetic resonance image guidance: a needle placement accuracy study},
	journal = {Journal of magnetic resonance imaging},
	volume = {26},
	number = {3},
	year = {2007},
	month = {Sep},
	pages = {688{\textendash}694},
	publisher = {Department of Radiology, Brigham, Women{\textquoteright}s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA},
	abstract = {<p>PURPOSE: To quantify needle placement accuracy of magnetic resonance image (MRI)-guided core needle biopsy of the prostate MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 biopsies were performed with 18-gauge (G) core biopsy needle via a percutaneous transperineal approach Needle placement error was assessed by comparing the coordinates of preplanned targets with the needle tip measured from the intraprocedural coherent gradient echo images The source of these errors was subsequently investigated by measuring displacement caused by needle deflection, needle susceptibility artifact shift in controlled phantom studies Needle placement error due to misalignment of the needle template guide was also evaluated RESULTS: The mean, standard deviation (SD) of errors in targeted biopsies was 6 5 +/- 3 5 mm Phantom experiments showed significant placement error due to needle deflection with a needle with an asymmetrically beveled tip (3 2-8 7 mm depending on tissue type) but significantly smaller error with a symmetrical bevel (0 6-1 1 mm) Needle susceptibility artifacts observed a shift of 1 6 +/- 0 4 mm from the true needle axis Misalignment of the needle template guide contributed an error of 1 5 +/- 0 3 mm CONCLUSION: Needle placement error was clinically significant in MRI-guided biopsy for diagnosis of prostate cancer Needle placement error due to needle deflection was the most significant cause of error, especially for needles with an asymmetrical bevel</p>
},
	keywords = {Aged, Artifacts, Biopsy, Contrast Media, diagnosis/pathology, Humans, Imaging, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy, Male, methods, Middle Aged, Needle, Needles, Phantoms, pharmacology, Prostatectomy, Prostatic Neoplasms, Reproducibility of Results, Retrospective Studies},
	doi = {10 1002/jmri 21067},
	url = {http://dx doi org/10 1002/jmri 21067},
	author = {Philip Blumenfeld and Nobuhiko Hata and Simon DiMaio and Kelly Zou and Steven Haker and Gabor Fichtinger and Clare M Tempany}
}
