ČESKÁ UROLOGIE / CZECH UROLOGY – 2 / 2018

97 Ces Urol 2018; 22(2): 87–98 PŘEHLEDOVÝ ČLÁNEK 28. Felker ER, Lee‑Felker SA, Feller J, et al. In‑bore magnetic resonance‑guided transrectal biopsy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2016; 41(5): 954–962. 29. Schimmöller L, Blondin D, Arsov C, et al. MRI‑guided in‑bore biopsy: differences between prostate cancer detection and localization in primary and secondary biopsy settings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016; 206(1): 92–99. 30. Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Quentin M, et al. Comparison of patient comfort between MR‑guided in‑bore and MRI/ultrasound fusion‑guided prostate biopsies within a prospective randomized trial. World J Urol 2016; 34(2): 215–220. 31. Haffner J, Lemaitre L, Puech P, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: com‑ parison of magnetic resonance imaging‑targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. BJU Int 2011; 108(8 Pt 2): E171–178. 32. Puech P, Rouvière O, Renard‑Penna R, et al. Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR‑targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US‑MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy – prospective multicenter study. Radiology 2013; 268(2): 461–469. 33. Lee DJ, Recabal P, Sjoberg DD, 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(3): 697–702. 34. Oberlin DT, Casalino DD, Miller FH, et al. Diagnostic value of guided biopsies: fusion and cognitive‑registration magnetic resonance imaging versus conventional ultrasound biopsy of the prostate. Urology 2016; 92: 75–79. 35. Oderda M, Faletti R, Battisti G, et al. Prostate cancer detection rate with koelis fusion biopsies versus cognitive biopsies: a comparative study. Urol Int 2016; 97(2): 230–237. 36. Delongchamps NB, Peyromaure M, Schull A, et al. Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer detection: comparison of random and targeted biopsies. J Urol 2013; 189(2): 493–499. 37. Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, et al. A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic reso‑ nance (MR) imaging‑ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR‑targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial. Eur Urol 2014; 66(2): 343–351. 38. Kwak JT, Hong CW, Pinto PA, et al. Is visual registration equivalent to semiautomated registration in prostate biopsy? Biomed Res Int 2015; 2015: 394742. 39. Radtke JP, Teber D, Hohenfellner M, Hadaschik BA. The current and future role of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer detection and management. Transl Androl Urol 2015; 4(3): 326–341. 40. Venderink W, de Rooij M, Sedelaar JPM, Huisman HJ, Fütterer JJ. Elastic versus rigid image regist‑ ration in magnetic resonance imaging‑transrectal ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta‑analysis. Eur Urol Focus. 2016, S2405–4569(16)30101–8. 41. Kaplan I, Oldenburg NE, Meskell P, et al. Real time MRI‑ultrasound image guided stereotactic prostate biopsy. Magn Reson Imaging 2002; 20(3): 295–299. 42. Singh AK, Kruecker J, Xu S, et al. Initial clinical experience with real‑time transrectal ultrasonography‑magnetic resonance imaging fusion‑guided prostate biopsy. BJU Int 2008; 101(7): 841–845. 43. Cash H, Maxeiner A, Stephan C, et al. The detection of significant prostate cancer is correlated with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI‑RADS) in MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. World J Urol 2016; 34(4): 525–532. 44. Le JD, Stephenson S, Brugger M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging‑ultrasound fusion biopsy for prediction of final prostate pathology. J Urol 2014; 192(5): 1367–1373. 45. Porpiglia F, DE Luca S, Passera R, et al. Multiparametric‑magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion tar‑ geted prostate biopsy improves agreement between biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason score. Anticancer Res 2016; 36(9): 4833–4839.