Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Ardeshir R. Rastinehad is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Ardeshir R. Rastinehad.


The Journal of Urology | 2011

Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion Guided Prostate Biopsy Improves Cancer Detection Following Transrectal Ultrasound Biopsy and Correlates With Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Peter A. Pinto; Paul H. Chung; Ardeshir R. Rastinehad; Angelo A. Baccala; Jochen Kruecker; Compton Benjamin; Sheng Xu; Pingkun Yan; Samuel Kadoury; Celene Chua; Julia K. Locklin; Baris Turkbey; Joanna H. Shih; Stacey P. Gates; Carey Buckner; Gennady Bratslavsky; W. Marston Linehan; Neil D. Glossop; Peter L. Choyke; Bradford J. Wood

PURPOSE A novel platform was developed that fuses pre-biopsy magnetic resonance imaging with real-time transrectal ultrasound imaging to identify and biopsy lesions suspicious for prostate cancer. The cancer detection rates for the first 101 patients are reported. MATERIALS AND METHODS This prospective, single institution study was approved by the institutional review board. Patients underwent 3.0 T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with endorectal coil, which included T2-weighted, spectroscopic, dynamic contrast enhanced and diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging sequences. Lesions suspicious for cancer were graded according to the number of sequences suspicious for cancer as low (2 or less), moderate (3) and high (4) suspicion. Patients underwent standard 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy and magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided biopsy with electromagnetic tracking of magnetic resonance imaging lesions. Chi-square and within cluster resampling analyses were used to correlate suspicion on magnetic resonance imaging and the incidence of cancer detected on biopsy. RESULTS Mean patient age was 63 years old. Median prostate specific antigen at biopsy was 5.8 ng/ml and 90.1% of patients had a negative digital rectal examination. Of patients with low, moderate and high suspicion on magnetic resonance imaging 27.9%, 66.7% and 89.5% were diagnosed with cancer, respectively (p <0.0001). Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided biopsy detected more cancer per core than standard 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy for all levels of suspicion on magnetic resonance imaging. CONCLUSIONS Prostate cancer localized on magnetic resonance imaging may be targeted using this novel magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided biopsy platform. Further research is needed to determine the role of this platform in cancer detection, active surveillance and focal therapy, and to determine which patients may benefit.


The Journal of Urology | 2011

Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds.

Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Vijay Shah; Ardeshir R. Rastinehad; Marcelino Bernardo; Thomas J. Pohida; Yuxi Pang; Dagane Daar; Compton Benjamin; Yolanda McKinney; Hari Trivedi; Celene Chua; Gennady Bratslavsky; Joanna H. Shih; W. Marston Linehan; Maria J. Merino; Peter L. Choyke; Peter A. Pinto

PURPOSE We determined the prostate cancer detection rate of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging at 3T. Precise one-to-one histopathological correlation with magnetic resonance imaging was possible using prostate magnetic resonance imaging based custom printed specimen molds after radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS This institutional review board approved prospective study included 45 patients (mean age 60.2 years, range 49 to 75) with a mean prostate specific antigen of 6.37 ng/ml (range 2.3 to 23.7) who had biopsy proven prostate cancer (mean Gleason score of 6.7, range 6 to 9). Before prostatectomy all patients underwent prostate magnetic resonance imaging using endorectal and surface coils on a 3T scanner, which included triplane T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging, apparent diffusion coefficient maps of diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging, dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy. The prostate specimen was whole mount sectioned in a customized mold, allowing geometric alignment to magnetic resonance imaging. Tumors were mapped on magnetic resonance imaging and histopathology. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of magnetic resonance imaging for cancer detection were calculated. In addition, the effects of tumor size and Gleason score on the sensitivity of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging were evaluated. RESULTS The positive predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect prostate cancer was 98%, 98% and 100% in the overall prostate, peripheral zone and central gland, respectively. The sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging sequences was higher for tumors larger than 5 mm in diameter as well as for those with higher Gleason scores (greater than 7, p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS Prostate magnetic resonance imaging at 3T allows for the detection of prostate cancer. A multiparametric approach increases the predictive power of magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis. In this study accurate correlation between multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and histopathology was obtained by the patient specific, magnetic resonance imaging based mold technique.


European Urology | 2015

Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsy: A Systematic Review.

Massimo Valerio; Ian Donaldson; Mark Emberton; Behfar Ehdaie; Boris Hadaschik; Leonard S. Marks; Pierre Mozer; Ardeshir R. Rastinehad; Hashim U. Ahmed

CONTEXT The current standard for diagnosing prostate cancer in men at risk relies on a transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy test that is blind to the location of the cancer. To increase the accuracy of this diagnostic pathway, a software-based magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound (MRI-US) fusion targeted biopsy approach has been proposed. OBJECTIVE Our main objective was to compare the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer with software-based MRI-US fusion targeted biopsy against standard biopsy. The two strategies were also compared in terms of detection of all cancers, sampling utility and efficiency, and rate of serious adverse events. The outcomes of different targeted approaches were also compared. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION We performed a systematic review of PubMed/Medline, Embase (via Ovid), and Cochrane Review databases in December 2013 following the Preferred Reported Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analysis statement. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Fourteen papers reporting the outcomes of 15 studies (n=2293; range: 13-582) were included. We found that MRI-US fusion targeted biopsies detect more clinically significant cancers (median: 33.3% vs 23.6%; range: 13.2-50% vs 4.8-52%) using fewer cores (median: 9.2 vs 37.1) compared with standard biopsy techniques, respectively. Some studies showed a lower detection rate of all cancer (median: 50.5% vs 43.4%; range: 23.7-82.1% vs 14.3-59%). MRI-US fusion targeted biopsy was able to detect some clinically significant cancers that would have been missed by using only standard biopsy (median: 9.1%; range: 5-16.2%). It was not possible to determine which of the two biopsy approaches led most to serious adverse events because standard and targeted biopsies were performed in the same session. Software-based MRI-US fusion targeted biopsy detected more clinically significant disease than visual targeted biopsy in the only study reporting on this outcome (20.3% vs 15.1%). CONCLUSIONS Software-based MRI-US fusion targeted biopsy seems to detect more clinically significant cancers deploying fewer cores than standard biopsy. Because there was significant study heterogeneity in patient inclusion, definition of significant cancer, and the protocol used to conduct the standard biopsy, these findings need to be confirmed by further large multicentre validating studies. PATIENT SUMMARY We compared the ability of standard biopsy to diagnose prostate cancer against a novel approach using software to overlay the images from magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound to guide biopsies towards the suspicious areas of the prostate. We found consistent findings showing the superiority of this novel targeted approach, although further high-quality evidence is needed to change current practice.


The Journal of Urology | 2012

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy Detect Prostate Cancer in Patients with Prior Negative Transrectal Ultrasound Biopsies

Srinivas Vourganti; Ardeshir R. Rastinehad; Nitin Yerram; Jeffrey W. Nix; Dmitry Volkin; An Hoang; Baris Turkbey; Gopal N. Gupta; Jochen Kruecker; W. Marston Linehan; Peter L. Choyke; Bradford J. Wood; Peter A. Pinto

PURPOSE Patients with negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies and a persistent clinical suspicion are at risk for occult but significant prostate cancer. The ability of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy to detect these occult prostate lesions may make it an effective tool in this challenging scenario. MATERIALS AND METHODS Between March 2007 and November 2011 all men underwent prostate 3 T endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging. All concerning lesions were targeted with magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy. In addition, all patients underwent standard 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Men with 1 or more negative systematic prostate biopsies were included in our cohort. RESULTS Of the 195 men with previous negative biopsies, 73 (37%) were found to have cancer using the magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy combined with 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. High grade cancer (Gleason score 8+) was discovered in 21 men (11%), all of whom had disease detected with magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy. However, standard transrectal ultrasound biopsy missed 12 of these high grade cancers (55%). Pathological upgrading occurred in 28 men (38.9%) as a result of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion targeting vs standard transrectal ultrasound biopsy. The diagnostic yield of combined magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion platform was unrelated to the number of previous negative biopsies and persisted despite increasing the number of previous biopsy sessions. On multivariate analysis only prostate specific antigen density and magnetic resonance imaging suspicion level remained significant predictors of cancer. CONCLUSIONS Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with a magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy platform is a novel diagnostic tool for detecting prostate cancer and may be ideally suited for patients with negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies in the face of a persistent clinical suspicion for cancer.


The Journal of Urology | 2012

Correlation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Tumor Volume with Histopathology

Baris Turkbey; Haresh Mani; Omer Aras; Ardeshir R. Rastinehad; Vijay Shah; Marcelino Bernardo; Thomas J. Pohida; Dagane Daar; Compton Benjamin; Yolanda McKinney; W. Marston Linehan; Bradford J. Wood; Maria J. Merino; Peter L. Choyke; Peter A. Pinto

PURPOSE The biology of prostate cancer may be influenced by the index lesion. The definition of index lesion volume is important for appropriate decision making, especially for image guided focal treatment. We determined the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for determining index tumor volume compared with volumes derived from histopathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS We evaluated 135 patients (mean age 59.3 years) with a mean prostate specific antigen of 6.74 ng/dl who underwent multiparametric 3T endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate and subsequent radical prostatectomy. Index tumor volume was determined prospectively and independently by magnetic resonance imaging and histopathology. The ellipsoid formula was applied to determine histopathology tumor volume, whereas manual tumor segmentation was used to determine magnetic resonance tumor volume. Histopathology tumor volume was correlated with age and prostate specific antigen whereas magnetic resonance tumor volume involved Pearson correlation and linear regression methods. In addition, the predictive power of magnetic resonance tumor volume, prostate specific antigen and age for estimating histopathology tumor volume (greater than 0.5 cm(3)) was assessed by ROC analysis. The same analysis was also conducted for the 1.15 shrinkage factor corrected histopathology data set. RESULTS There was a positive correlation between histopathology tumor volume and magnetic resonance tumor volume (Pearson coefficient 0.633, p <0.0001), but a weak correlation between prostate specific antigen and histopathology tumor volume (Pearson coefficient 0.237, p = 0.003). On linear regression analysis histopathology tumor volume and magnetic resonance tumor volume were correlated (r(2) = 0.401, p <0.00001). On ROC analysis AUC values for magnetic resonance tumor volume, prostate specific antigen and age in estimating tumors larger than 0.5 cm(3) at histopathology were 0.949 (p <0.0000001), 0.685 (p = 0.001) and 0.627 (p = 0.02), respectively. Similar results were found in the analysis with shrinkage factor corrected tumor volumes at histopathology. CONCLUSIONS Magnetic resonance imaging can accurately estimate index tumor volume as determined by histology. Magnetic resonance imaging has better accuracy in predicting histopathology tumor volume in tumors larger than 0.5 cm(3) than prostate specific antigen and age. Index tumor volume as determined by magnetic resonance imaging may be helpful in planning treatment, specifically in identifying tumor margins for image guided focal therapy and possibly selecting better active surveillance candidates.


The Journal of Urology | 2014

Improving Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Guided Prostate Biopsy

Ardeshir R. Rastinehad; Baris Turkbey; Simpa S. Salami; Oksana Yaskiv; Arvin K. George; Mathew Fakhoury; Karin Beecher; Manish Vira; Louis Kavoussi; David N. Siegel; Robert Villani; Eran Ben-Levi

PURPOSE Given the limitations of prostate specific antigen and standard biopsies for detecting prostate cancer, we evaluated the cancer detection rate and external validity of a magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy system used at the National Institutes of Health. MATERIALS AND METHODS We performed a phase III trial of a magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy system with participants enrolled between 2012 and 2013. A total of 153 men consented to the study and underwent 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with an endorectal coil for clinical suspicion of prostate cancer. Lesions were classified as low or moderate/high risk for prostate cancer. Magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy and standard 12-core prostate biopsy were performed and 105 men were eligible for analysis. RESULTS Mean patient age was 65.8 years and mean prostate specific antigen was 9.5 ng/ml. The overall cancer detection rate was 62.9% (66 of 105 patients). The cancer detection rate in those with moderate/high risk on imaging was 72.3% (47 of 65) vs 47.5% (19 of 40) in those classified as low risk for prostate cancer (p<0.05). Mean tumor core length was 4.6 and 3.7 mm for fusion biopsy and standard 12-core biopsy, respectively (p<0.05). Magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy detected prostate cancer that was missed by standard 12-core biopsy in 14.3% of cases (15 of 105), of which 86.7% (13 of 15) were clinically significant. This biopsy upgraded 23.5% of cancers (4 of 17) deemed clinically insignificant on 12-core biopsy to clinically significant prostate cancer necessitating treatment. CONCLUSIONS Magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy can improve prostate cancer detection. The results of this trial support the external validity of this platform and may be the next step in the evolution of prostate cancer management.


Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging | 2014

Comparison of endorectal coil and nonendorectal coil T2W and diffusion-weighted MRI at 3 Tesla for localizing prostate cancer: correlation with whole-mount histopathology.

Baris Turkbey; Maria J. Merino; Elma Carvajal Gallardo; Shah; Omer Aras; Marcelino Bernardo; Esther Mena; Dagane Daar; Ardeshir R. Rastinehad; Linehan Wm; Bradford J. Wood; Peter A. Pinto; Peter L. Choyke

To compare utility of T2‐weighted (T2W) MRI and diffusion‐weighted MRI (DWI‐MRI) obtained with and without an endorectal coil at 3 Tesla (T) for localizing prostate cancer.


BJUI | 2014

In patients with a previous negative prostate biopsy and a suspicious lesion on MRI, is a 12-core biopsy still necessary in addition to a targeted biopsy?

Simpa S. Salami; Eran Ben-Levi; Oksana Yaskiv; Laura Ryniker; Baris Turkbey; Louis R. Kavoussi; Robert Villani; Ardeshir R. Rastinehad

To evaluate the performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in predicting prostate cancer on repeat biopsy; and to compare the cancer detection rates (CDRs) of MRI/transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) fusion‐guided biopsy with standard 12‐core biopsy in men with at least one previous negative biopsy.


BJUI | 2015

Diagnostic value of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an adjunct to prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based detection of prostate cancer in men without prior biopsies.

Soroush Rais-Bahrami; M. Minhaj Siddiqui; Srinivas Vourganti; Baris Turkbey; Ardeshir R. Rastinehad; Lambros Stamatakis; Hong Truong; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Anthony N. Hoang; Jeffrey W. Nix; Maria J. Merino; Bradford J. Wood; Richard M. Simon; Peter L. Choyke; Peter A. Pinto

To determine the diagnostic yield of analysing biparametric (T2‐ and diffusion‐weighted) magnetic resonance imaging (B‐MRI) for prostate cancer detection compared with standard digital rectal examination (DRE) and prostate‐specific antigen (PSA)‐based screening.


Urology | 2009

A 20-Year Experience With Percutaneous Resection of Upper Tract Transitional Carcinoma: Is There an Oncologic Benefit With Adjuvant Bacillus Calmette Guérin Therapy?

Ardeshir R. Rastinehad; Michael C. Ost; Brian A. VanderBrink; Kathryn L. Greenberg; Assaad El-Hakim; Gopal H. Badlani; Arthur D. Smith

OBJECTIVES To determine whether there is an oncologic benefit of adjuvant bacillus Calmette Guérin (BCG) after resection of upper tract transitional cell carcinoma (UTTCC). METHODS A total of 133 renal units (RU) treated by percutaneous resection for UTTCC between 1985 and 2005 were retrospectively analyzed. Forty-four RU were excluded because of carcinoma in situ, high grade/stage, metastatic disease present at initial presentation, and/or the patient could tolerate loss of RU. Eighty-nine RU treated primarily by percutaneous resection were then analyzed. Fifty RU received adjuvant BCG therapy 2 weeks after endoscopic management for a total of 6 courses. Recurrence was defined as a positive biopsy result after the third-look nephroscopy. Progression of disease was assessed at time of recurrence and defined as an increase in grade/stage of disease. RESULTS Mean age (+/- SD) of 89 RU was 70.9 +/- 11.1 years. Overall follow-up was 61.1 + 54.8 months. Grade distribution was 56.2% (50 of 89) and 43.8% (39 of 89) for low- and high-grade disease, respectively. There was no statistical difference with regard to tumor grade or stage between treated and nontreated groups (P > .05). Recurrence, time to recurrence, and progression of disease among RU treated with BCG were subselected by grade and compared with the corresponding nontreated group. Statistical significance between any of the treated and nontreated groups was not demonstrated (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS Our data demonstrate that there is no overall oncologic benefit in the administration of adjuvant BCG with regard to disease recurrence, interval to recurrence, and progression of disease in the treatment of UTTCC.

Collaboration


Dive into the Ardeshir R. Rastinehad's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Peter A. Pinto

National Institutes of Health

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Baris Turkbey

National Institutes of Health

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Peter L. Choyke

National Institutes of Health

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Bradford J. Wood

National Institutes of Health

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Arvin K. George

National Institutes of Health

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Maria J. Merino

National Institutes of Health

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Arthur D. Smith

North Shore-LIJ Health System

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

David N. Siegel

North Shore-LIJ Health System

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge