Bibliografía Módulo 1 – Capítulo 1 (Estadificación)

  1. EAU Guidelines 2024 (European Association of Urology) [Internet] Disponible en: https://uroweb.org/guidelines/.
  2. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA; Grading Committee. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40(2):244-52. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530.
  3. AUA Guidelines (American Urological Association). [Internet] Disponible en: https://www.auanet.org/guidelines-and-quality/guidelines/oncology-guidelines/prostate-cancer
  4. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®). PROSTATE CANCER. Version 4.2024 — May 17, 2024. [Internet] Disponible en: https://www.nccn.org/
Scroll al inicio

Bibliografía

  1. Bhanji Y, Allaway MJ, and Gorin MA. Recent Advances and Current Role of Transperineal Prostate Biopsy. Urol Clin North Am. 2021;48:25-33. doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2020.09.010.
  2. Pradere B, Veeratterapillay R, Dimitropoulos K, Yuan Y, Omar MI, MacLennan S, et al. Nonantibiotic Strategies for the Prevention of Infectious Complications following Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Urol 2021;205:653–63. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000001399.
  3. Ismail MT and Gomella LG. Transrectal prostate biopsy. Urol Clin North Am. 2013;40:457-72. doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2013.07.012.
  4. Omer A and Lamb AD. Optimizing prostate biopsy techniques. Curr Opin Urol. 2019;29:578-86. doi:10.1097/MOU.0000000000000678.
  5. Xiang J, Yan H, Li J, Wang X, Chen H, and Zheng X. Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2019;17:31. doi:10.1186/s12957-019-1573-0.
  6. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Briers E, Bolla M, Bourke L, Cornford P, et al. EAU – ESTRO – ESUR – SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Arnhem, The Netherlands: EAU Guidelines Office. 2021.
  7. Parker C, Castro E, Fizazi K, Heidenreich A, Ost P, Procopio G, et al. Prostate cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol. 2020;31:1119-34. doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2020.06.011.
  8. Eichler K, Hempel S, Wilby J, Myers L, Bachmann LM, and Kleijnen J. Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J Urol. 2006;175:1605-12. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00957-2.
  9. Rastinehad AR, Baccala AAJ, Chung PH, Proano JM, Kruecker J, Xu S, et al. D’Amico risk stratification correlates with degree of suspicion of prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol. 2011;185:81520. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2010.10.076.
  10. Zhen L, Liu X, Yegang C, Yongjiao Y, Yawei X, Jiaqi K, et al. Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing prostate Cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 2019;19:1244. doi:10.1186/s12885-019-6434-2.
  11. Moldovan PC, Van den Broeck T, Sylvester R, Marconi L, Bellmunt J, van den Bergh RCN, et al. What Is the Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Excluding Prostate Cancer at Biopsy? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol 2017;72:250-66. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2017.02.026.
  12. Park KJ, Choi SH, Lee JS, Kim JK, and Kim M-H. Interreader Agreement with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for Prostate Cancer Detection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Urol. 2020;204:661-70. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000001200.
  13. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69:16-40. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052.
  14. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:746-57. doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y.
  15. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur Urol. 2019;76:340-51. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033.
  16. Koh D-M and Collins DJ. Diffusion-weighted MRI in the body: applications and challenges in oncology. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:1622-35. doi:10.2214/AJR.06.1403.
  17. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1767-77. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1801993.
  18. Drost F-JH, Osses DF, Nieboer D, Steyerberg EW, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ, et al. Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;4:CD012663. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD012663.pub2.
  19. Celma A, López R, Roche S, Planas J, Regis L, Placer J, et al. Are targeted prostate biopsies ready to replace systematic prostate biopsies? Actas Urol Esp. 2019;43:573-8. doi:10.1016/j.acuro.2018.06.011.
  20. Schoots IG, Padhani AR, Rouvière O, Barentsz JO, and Richenberg J. Analysis of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-directed Biopsy Strategies for Changing the Paradigm of Prostate Cancer Diagnosis. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020;3:32-41. doi:10.1016/j.euo.2019.10.001.
  21. Lomas DJ and Ahmed HU. All change in the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2020;17:372-81. doi:10.1038/s41571-020-0332-z.
  22. Rosenkrantz AB, Verma S, Choyke P, Eberhardt SC, Eggener SE, Gaitonde K, et al. Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy in Patients with a Prior Negative Biopsy: A Consensus Statement by AUA and SAR. J Urol. 2016;196:1613-8. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.079.
  23. Kenigsberg AP, Renson A, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang R, Wysock JS, Taneja SS, et al. Optimizing the Number of Cores Targeted During Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Fusion Target Biopsy. Eur Urol Oncol. 2018;1:418-25. doi:10.1016/j.euo.2018.09.006.
  24. Lu AJ, Syed JS, Ghabili K, Hsiang WR, Nguyen KA, Leapman MS, et al. Role of Core Number and Location in Targeted Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Prostate Biopsy. Eur Urol. 2019;76:14-7. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2019.04.008.
  25. Puech P, Rouvière O, Renard-Penna R, Villers A, Devos P, Colombel M, et al. Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy–prospective multicenter study. 2013;268:461-9. doi:10.1148/radiol.13121501.
  26. Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, Stifelman MD, Lepor H, Deng F-M, et al. A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial. Eur Urol. 2014;66:343-51. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.10.048.
  27. Lee DJ, Recabal P, Sjoberg DD, Thong A, Lee JK, Eastham JA, et al. Comparative Effectiveness of Targeted Prostate Biopsy Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging Ultrasound Fusion Software and Visual Targeting: a Prospective Study. J Urol. 2016;196:697-702. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2016.03.149.
  28. Khoo CC, Eldred-Evans D, Peters M, van Son M, van Rossum PSN, Connor MJ, et al. A Comparison of Prostate Cancer Detection between Visual Estimation (Cognitive Registration) and Image Fusion (Software Registration) Targeted Transperineal Prostate Biopsy. J Urol. 2021;205:1075-81. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000001476.
  29. Wegelin O, Exterkate L, van der Leest M, Kummer JA, Vreuls W, de Bruin PC, et al. The FUTURE Trial: A Multicenter Randomised Controlled Trial on Target Biopsy Techniques Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in Patients with Prior Negative Biopsies. Eur Urol. 2019;75:582-90. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.040.
  30. Boesen L, Nørgaard N, Løgager V, Balslev I, Bisbjerg R, Thestrup K-C, et al. Prebiopsy Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Combined with Prostate-specific Antigen Density in Detecting and Ruling out Gleason 7-10 Prostate Cancer in Biopsy-naïve Men. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019;2:311-9. doi:10.1016/j.euo.2018.09.001.
  31. van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B, Hendriks R, Padhani AR, Hoogenboom M, et al. Head-to-head Comparison of Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Prostate Biopsy Versus Multiparametric Prostate Resonance Imaging with Subsequent Magnetic Resonance-guided Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Men with Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen: A Large Prospective Multicenter Clinical Study. Eur Urol. 2019;75:570-8. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023.
  32. Oishi M, Shin T, Ohe C, Nassiri N, Palmer SL, Aron M, et al. Which Patients with Negative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Can Safely Avoid Biopsy for Prostate Cancer? J Urol. 2019;201:268-76. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2018.08.046.

El contenido de esta página web está dirigido exclusivamente al profesional sanitario facultado para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos en España, por lo que se requiere una formación especializada para su correcta interpretación.

Soy profesional sanitario
No Soy profesional sanitario