2024
Pathologic prostate cancer grade concordance among high-resolution micro-ultrasound, systematic transrectal ultrasound and MRI fusion biopsy
Lokeshwar S, Choksi A, Smani S, Kong V, Sundaresan V, Sutherland R, Brito J, Renzulli J, Sprenkle P, Leapman M. Pathologic prostate cancer grade concordance among high-resolution micro-ultrasound, systematic transrectal ultrasound and MRI fusion biopsy. Urologic Oncology Seminars And Original Investigations 2024 PMID: 39521675, DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.10.018.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchMRI-TRUSMRI-TRUS fusionImage-guided biopsyFusion biopsyGG upgradingTRUS biopsyBiopsy strategyBiopsy typeNo significant differencePathological concordanceBiopsy techniqueHigh-resolution micro-ultrasoundMRI-TRUS fusion biopsyMultivariate logistic-regression analysisMRI fusion biopsySystematic transrectal ultrasoundProstate cancer patientsSignificant differenceMicro-ultrasoundLogistic-regression analysisMultivariable-analysisPathological downgradingPathological upgradingRandomized controlled trialsProstate biopsyRisk 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‘It Just Makes Sense to Me’: A qualitative study exploring patient decision‐making and experiences with prostate MRI during active surveillance for prostate cancer
Sutherland R, Gross C, Ma X, Jeong F, Seibert T, Cooperberg M, Catalona W, Ellis S, Loeb S, Schulman‐Green D, Leapman M. ‘It Just Makes Sense to Me’: A qualitative study exploring patient decision‐making and experiences with prostate MRI during active surveillance for prostate cancer. BJUI Compass 2024, 5: 593-601. PMID: 38873351, PMCID: PMC11168777, DOI: 10.1002/bco2.351.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchProstate magnetic resonance imagingMagnetic resonance imagingProstate cancerActive surveillanceActive surveillance of prostate cancerGleason Grade Group 1Surveillance of prostate cancerIntermediate-risk prostate cancerMonitoring of prostate cancerMRI-ultrasound fusion biopsyGrade group 1Monitoring prostate cancerGroup 2 tumorsMagnetic resonance imaging scansFusion biopsyLongitudinal follow-upProstate biopsyFollow-upProstateSemi-structured interviews of patientsMRI useQualitative studyGroup 1Interviews of patientsPatients
2023
“It just makes sense to me”: Patient experiences with prostate MRI during prostate cancer active surveillance.
Sutherland R, Gross C, Ma X, Jeong F, Seibert T, Cooperberg M, Catalona W, Loeb S, Schulman-Green D, Leapman M. “It just makes sense to me”: Patient experiences with prostate MRI during prostate cancer active surveillance. Journal Of Clinical Oncology 2023, 41: 334-334. DOI: 10.1200/jco.2023.41.6_suppl.334.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchActive surveillanceProstate cancerProstate MRIPatient experienceGleason Grade Group 1Prostate cancer active surveillanceIntermediate-risk prostate cancerRisk prostate cancerGrade group 1Group 2 tumorsMRI-ultrasound fusion biopsyMean sample ageHispanics/LatinosInitial diagnosisFusion biopsyProstate biopsyConventional content analysisPatient's perspectiveClinical careGroup 1MRI resultsMRI scansProviders' explanationsCancerPatients
2022
Distribution 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
MP77-07 HOW MANY CORES ARE NEEDED TO DETECT CLINICALLY SIGNIFICANT PROSTATE CANCER ON TARGETED MRI-ULTRASOUND FUSION BIOPSY?
Lu A, Amirkhiz K, Nguyen K, Leapman M, Sprenkle P. MP77-07 HOW MANY CORES ARE NEEDED TO DETECT CLINICALLY SIGNIFICANT PROSTATE CANCER ON TARGETED MRI-ULTRASOUND FUSION BIOPSY? Journal Of Urology 2018, 199: e1029-e1030. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.02.2595.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchOutcomes of serial MRI/ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy in men with very low-risk and low-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance.
Hsiang W, Ghabili K, Syed J, Nguyen K, Suarez-Sarmiento A, Leapman M, Sprenkle P. Outcomes of serial MRI/ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy in men with very low-risk and low-risk prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. Journal Of Clinical Oncology 2018, 36: 114-114. DOI: 10.1200/jco.2018.36.6_suppl.114.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchMRI/US fusion biopsyLow-risk prostate cancerNational Comprehensive Cancer NetworkFusion biopsyActive surveillanceSystematic biopsyProstate cancerGleason upgradeMagnetic resonance imagingPSA densitySubsequent biopsyFavorable-risk prostate cancerMRI/ultrasound fusionSerial magnetic resonance imagingProportion of patientsRisk prostate cancerComprehensive Cancer NetworkLow-risk criteriaRisk of reclassificationLogistic regression modelsBiopsy upgradeMedian PSAGleason scoreHigher PSAInstitutional databaseHow 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-quarterIs 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 ReportingLesions