2024
Risk Factors and Contemporary Management Options for Pain and Discomfort Experienced During a Prostate Biopsy
Diaz G, Webb L, Rabil M, Lokeshwar S, Choksi A, Leapman M, Sprenkle P. Risk Factors and Contemporary Management Options for Pain and Discomfort Experienced During a Prostate Biopsy. Current Urology Reports 2024, 25: 243-252. PMID: 38896314, DOI: 10.1007/s11934-024-01220-w.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchProstate biopsyRisk factorsEffective pain management strategiesDiagnosed prostate cancerPain management strategiesIn-office proceduresModern management optionsNonadherence to treatmentContemporary management optionsEnhance patient comfortInnovative imaging modalitiesExperience of painFusion biopsyProstate volumePain intensityProstate cancerPain varyPatient ageIncreased painFollow-upIn-officeManagement optionsSurveillance adherenceBiopsyPharmacological analgesics
2023
Prostate cancer risk stratification using magnetic resonance imaging–ultrasound fusion vs systematic prostate biopsy
Khajir G, Press B, Lokeshwar S, Ghabili K, Rahman S, Gardezi M, Washington S, Cooperberg M, Sprenkle P, Leapman M. Prostate cancer risk stratification using magnetic resonance imaging–ultrasound fusion vs systematic prostate biopsy. JNCI Cancer Spectrum 2023, 7: pkad099. PMID: 38085220, PMCID: PMC10733209, DOI: 10.1093/jncics/pkad099.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchConceptsMagnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusionMRF-TBLow-risk diseaseSystematic biopsyLower riskRisk groupingProstate biopsyActive surveillanceHigh riskProstate cancer risk stratificationIntermediate-risk criteriaIntermediate-risk diseaseSystematic prostate biopsyCancer risk stratificationPrimary study objectiveNCCN guidelinesImage-guided approachLocalized cancerRisk stratificationBenign findingsProstate cancerClinical riskDiagnostic yieldRetrospective analysisBiopsyUse of Monitoring Tests Among Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer Managed With Observation
Leapman M, Wang R, Loeb S, Seibert T, Gaylis F, Lowentritt B, Brown G, Chen R, Lin D, Witte J, Cooperberg M, Catalona W, Gross C, Ma X. Use of Monitoring Tests Among Patients With Localized Prostate Cancer Managed With Observation. Journal Of Urology 2023, 209: 710-718. PMID: 36753746, DOI: 10.1097/ju.0000000000003159.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchConceptsIntermediate-risk prostate cancerMixed-effects Poisson regressionPSA testingProstate biopsyProstate cancerEffects Poisson regressionMedicare beneficiariesPoisson regressionAdditional prostate biopsyRetrospective cohort studyProstate MRILocalized prostate cancerRepeat prostate biopsyRate of biopsyRace/ethnicityCensus tract povertyMedian followCohort studyMedian ageMonitoring testsProvider factorsPSA testClinical riskBiopsySociodemographic factorsEnvironmental Impact of Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Prostate Biopsy
Leapman M, Thiel C, Gordon I, Nolte A, Perecman A, Loeb S, Overcash M, Sherman J. Environmental Impact of Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Prostate Biopsy. European Urology 2023, 83: 463-471. PMID: 36635108, DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.12.008.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchConceptsProstate magnetic resonance imagingMagnetic resonance imagingSystematic biopsyProstate biopsyProstate biopsy procedureResonance imagingBiopsy coresTransrectal Ultrasound Guided Prostate BiopsyBiopsy procedureMultiparametric magnetic resonance imagingUnnecessary prostate biopsiesBiparametric magnetic resonance imagingOutpatient urology clinicNumber of biopsiesGuided Prostate BiopsyAcademic medical centerHealth care facilitiesEvidence-based approachUrology clinicClinical managementMedical CenterTriage strategiesClinical careTransrectal ultrasoundBiopsy
2022
PD41-04 DISTRIBUTION OF NATIONAL COMPREHENSIVE CANCER NETWORK RISK CLASSIFICATIONS USING MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING-ULTRASOUND FUSION VERSUS SYSTEMIC 12 CORE BIOPSIES
Khajir G, Press B, Sprenkle P, Washington S, Cooperberg M, Leapman M. PD41-04 DISTRIBUTION OF NATIONAL COMPREHENSIVE CANCER NETWORK RISK CLASSIFICATIONS USING MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING-ULTRASOUND FUSION VERSUS SYSTEMIC 12 CORE BIOPSIES. Journal Of Urology 2022, 207: e690. DOI: 10.1097/ju.0000000000002602.04.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchDistribution of NCCN risk classifications using MRI-ultrasound fusion versus systematic 12 core biopsies.
Khajir G, Press B, Levi A, Sprenkle P, Leapman M. Distribution of NCCN risk classifications using MRI-ultrasound fusion versus systematic 12 core biopsies. Journal Of Clinical Oncology 2022, 40: 283-283. DOI: 10.1200/jco.2022.40.6_suppl.283.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchMRI-ultrasound fusion biopsyNCCN risk classificationMRI-ultrasound fusionFusion biopsyLower riskActive surveillanceNCCN riskSystematic biopsyCore biopsyRisk classificationFirst-time biopsyInitial active surveillanceProportion of patientsMajority of patientsEra of MRIPrimary study objectiveProstate cancer risk classificationNCCN definitionsMedian PSASurveillance biopsiesBiopsy cohortRetrospective studySingle institutionProstate cancerBiopsy
2018
MP17-12 UTILITY OF SERIAL MRI/ULTRASOUND FUSION TARGETED BIOPSY IN MEN WITH LOW RISK PROSTATE CANCER MANAGED WITH ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE
Hsiang W, Ghabili K, Lu A, Syed J, Nguyen K, Suarez-Sarmiento A, Leapman M, Sprenkle P. MP17-12 UTILITY OF SERIAL MRI/ULTRASOUND FUSION TARGETED BIOPSY IN MEN WITH LOW RISK PROSTATE CANCER MANAGED WITH ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE. Journal Of Urology 2018, 199: e209. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.02.567.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchIs PI-RADS 3/total lesion ratio associated with clinically-significant prostate cancer in patients with equivocal-risk lesions on multi-parametric MRI?
Ghabili K, Swallow M, Suarez-Sarmiento A, Syed J, Leapman M, Weinreb J, Sprenkle P. Is PI-RADS 3/total lesion ratio associated with clinically-significant prostate cancer in patients with equivocal-risk lesions on multi-parametric MRI? Journal Of Clinical Oncology 2018, 36: 149-149. DOI: 10.1200/jco.2018.36.6_suppl.149.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchSmaller prostate volumeMulti-parametric MRISignificant prostate cancerProstate volumeProstate cancerROI ratioPSA densityGrade groupPrediction of csPCaRisk of csPCaData System (BI-RADS) category 3Prostate Imaging ReportingMpMRI findingsBiopsy databasePrior diagnosisTargeted biopsiesFusion biopsyPositive coresCsPCaUnnecessary biopsiesBiopsyMultivariate analysisPatientsImaging ReportingLesionsHow many cores are needed to detect clinically significant prostate cancer on targeted MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy?
Lu A, Ghabili K, Nguyen K, Leapman M, Sprenkle P. How many cores are needed to detect clinically significant prostate cancer on targeted MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy? Journal Of Clinical Oncology 2018, 36: 134-134. DOI: 10.1200/jco.2018.36.6_suppl.134.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchCancer detection rateFusion biopsyMulti-parametric MRILesion basisMRI-US fusion biopsyHistory of PCaHigh-grade cancerSignificant prostate cancerMRI-ultrasound fusion biopsyMpMRI studiesClinical suspicionPrimary outcomeSignificant PCaLesion biopsyDetection rateProstate cancerBiopsy coresBiopsyRegion of interestLesion targetingGenitourinary radiologistsCancerLesionsPatientsOne-quarter
2016
TRUS Biopsy: Is There Still a Role?
Leapman M, Shinohara K. TRUS Biopsy: Is There Still a Role? 2016, 53-67. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-21485-6_4.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchProstate biopsyLateral peripheral zoneTRUS prostate biopsyInitial negative biopsyBiopsy-related complicationsCancer detection rateNovel serum biomarkersNegative predictive valueTRUS-BxPower Doppler imagingClinical parametersNegative biopsySextant biopsyGleason scoreSerum biomarkersUltrasonographic parametersPrognostic informationSuspicious lesionsBiopsy strategyBiopsyDoppler imagingPredictive valueBenign tissueContrast enhancementPeripheral zone