MRI detects prostate cancer better than conventional TRUS biopsy, and is implemented through e-communication

This is a lecture by Dr. Jelle Barentz.

Professor of Radiology

Prostate MR-Center of Excellence

Department of Radiology

Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre

The Netherlands

Topic:  MRI detects prostate cancer better than conventional TRUS biopsy, and is implemented through e-communication.

This video was produced by : TEDx Maastricht

This entry was posted in Biopsy, Diagnosis, Imaging, MRI, Prostate Cancer, Treatments for Prostate Cancer and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to MRI detects prostate cancer better than conventional TRUS biopsy, and is implemented through e-communication

  1. Glenn Wood says:

    Interesting and informative presentation. Much better approach than the 16 core biopsy I underwent which was negative. My question is with a pinpoint target, that may reveal prostate cancer, can it then be diagnosed if it is an aggressive or non-aggressive form of cancer. If, in fact it is a non-aggressive form then perhaps Active Surveillance would be more appropriate, instead of current radical treatments – RP or radiation – with all the severe side-effects of incontinence, ED, penis length reduction and bowel problems that affect the man and his family after such treatments.

  2. Erk Erginer says:

    I am completely in agreement with Dr. Barentz’s presentation & Mr. Wood’s assertions. It must be made the preferred method of diagnosis of PC and to further identify the aggressive kind of PC. IN MY OPINION, the idea of puncturing one’s perineum and other organs up to 16 times; repeatedly in the course of several years is plain repugnant, unnecessary agony and expenditure. Several case histories I read of Dr. Binzell and Dr. Richardson I noticed the phrases like: “follow up of cancer was achieved by MRIs taken”. IF IT WERE POSSIBLE TO USE MRI FOR FOLLOW UP IT COULD BE MADE POSSIBLE TO USE IT FOR DIAGNOSIS. PSA AND PCA-3 AND THE MRI METHOD MENTIONED I HOPE WOULD SUFFICE to eliminate the biopsy nonsense.
    On the therapy side, the claims of success of some doctors must be proven or dis-proven, once and for all by legitimate institutions of learning, instead of FDA stating bogus claims against them, especially without evidence.
    Regards,