MRI-Guided Strategies for Prostate Cancer Imaging
Study shows MRI is more cost-effective than standard biopsy in helping physicians detect disease
Prostate cancer is the 2nd most common cancer in American men, with about 161,360 new cases in 2017. About 1 in 7 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer and about 26,730 men will die from the disease this year2.
With prostate cancer on the rise, a team of experts in radiology, urology, and statistical analysis at UH Cleveland Medical Center and Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine combined to publish a ground-breaking study on the efficacy of MRI in providing support for physicians as they detect and diagnose prostate cancer: “Cost-effectiveness of MRI-guided strategies for detection of prostate cancer in biopsy naïve men.”
According to Dr. Vikas Gulani, one of the authors, the study was designed to explore a relatively straightforward question: Should men identified as having the potential for prostate cancer be imaged with MRI before going through the current standard for diagnosis, namely transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) biopsy?
In short, the study found that MRI is a cost-effective tool in helping physicians detect and diagnose high-risk prostate cancers. It also offers greater speed, accuracy, and comfort compared to the TRUS procedure, which consists of 12 core biopsies and may require 2-3 repeat studies after an initial negative biopsy.
The MR images used in the study were acquired on our 3T scanners. We discussed the study results and the benefits of MRI-guided prostate cancer procedures for patients and clinicians with Dr. Gulani.
Submit the form to get our FREE case study on the published report.
Because of some maintenance activities, this service is not available currently.
Please try again later.
1This statement is from a person who or whose institution is engaged in a collaboration with Siemens.
The statements by the customer described herein are based on results that were achieved in the customer’s unique setting. Since there is no “typical” hospital and many variables exist (e.g., hospital size, case mix, level of IT adoption), there can be no guarantee that other customers will achieve the same results.