You have accessJournal of UrologyProstate Cancer: Detection & Screening IV1 Apr 2016PD15-09 OUTCOMES AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF SOFTWARE FUSION MRI-TARGETED BIOPSY: IS FUSION BETTER THAN COGNITIVE TARGETING? Eric Kim, Joel Vetter, John Weaver, Niraj Badhiwala, Michael Glamore, Robert Grubb, and Gerald Andriole Eric KimEric Kim More articles by this author , Joel VetterJoel Vetter More articles by this author , John WeaverJohn Weaver More articles by this author , Niraj BadhiwalaNiraj Badhiwala More articles by this author , Michael GlamoreMichael Glamore More articles by this author , Robert GrubbRobert Grubb More articles by this author , and Gerald AndrioleGerald Andriole More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.1135AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES At high-volume centers, prostate cancer (PCa) detection between software fusion and cognitive MRI-targeted biopsy (MTB) has not been found to be significantly different in well-designed studies where patients served as their own control. We examined differences in PCa detection between biopsy strategies at our institution to determine if real-world implementation of fusion MTB would improve outcomes. METHODS Software fusion MTB was implemented at our institution in December 2014. We identified 178 patients who received cognitive MTB between January 2011 and November 2014, and 91 patients who received fusion MTB from December 2014 to March 2015. Cognitive MTB was performed by visual estimation with the TargetScan system (Envisioneering, Pittsburgh, PA). Fusion MTB was performed with the UroNav system (Invivo, Gainesville, FL). Standard template, systematic, 12-core biopsy was also performed with both approaches. Gleason 7+ PCa was considered clinically significant. RESULTS There were no significant differences in patient age, PSA, digital rectal examination, or MRI appearance between the biopsy cohorts. For both the fusion and cognitive MTB, we compared the targeted to the systematic cores in the following fashion: ′missed′, ′equivalent′, and ′upstage′. ′Missed′ was defined as clinically significant PCa only found on the systematic cores. ′Equivalent′ was defined as systematic and targeted cores both find clinically significant PCa, insignificant PCa, or benign prostate. ′Upstage′ was defined as clinically significant PCa only found on the targeted cores. Fusion was associated with less ′missed′ (5.5% vs. 9.6%) and greater ′upstage′ events (9.9% vs. 7.9%), but this was not found to be statistically significant (p=0.47) (Table 1). CONCLUSIONS In our experience, fusion MTB was not a significant improvement over cognitive MTB when comparing targeted to systematic biopsy results. Our study result from a real-world implementation of fusion MTB confirms previous results from high-volume centers that cognitive MTB provides equivalent benefits in PCa detection. Centers performing exclusively cognitive MTB should not be considered below the standard of care. © 2016FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 195Issue 4SApril 2016Page: e392 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2016MetricsAuthor Information Eric Kim More articles by this author Joel Vetter More articles by this author John Weaver More articles by this author Niraj Badhiwala More articles by this author Michael Glamore More articles by this author Robert Grubb More articles by this author Gerald Andriole More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...