Baris Turkbey
National Institutes of Health
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Baris Turkbey.
Radiology | 2010
Baris Turkbey; Peter A. Pinto; Haresh Mani; Marcelino Bernardo; Yuxi Pang; Yolanda McKinney; Kiranpreet Khurana; Gregory Ravizzini; Paul S. Albert; Maria J. Merino; Peter L. Choyke
PURPOSE To determine utility of multiparametric imaging performed at 3 T for detection of prostate cancer by using T2-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, MR spectroscopy, and dynamic contrast material-enhanced MR imaging, with whole-mount pathologic findings as reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS This prospectively designed, HIPAA-compliant, single-institution study was approved by the local institutional review board. Seventy consecutive patients (mean age, 60.4 years; mean prostate-specific antigen level, 5.47 ng/mL [5.47 microg/L]; range, 1-19.9 ng/mL [1-19.9 microg/L]) were included; informed consent was obtained from each patient. All patients had biopsy-proved prostate cancer, with a median Gleason score of 7 (range, 6-9). Images were obtained by using a combination of six-channel cardiac and endorectal coils. MR imaging and pathologic findings were evaluated independently and blinded and then correlated with histopathologic findings by using side-by-side comparison. Analyses were conducted with a raw stringent approach and an alternative neighboring method, which accounted for surgical deformation, shrinkage, and nonuniform slicing factors in pathologic specimens. Generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were used to estimate the predictive value of region-specific, pathologically determined cancer for all three modalities. This approach accounts for the correlation among multiple regions in the same individual. RESULTS For T2-weighted MR imaging, sensitivity and specificity values obtained with stringent approach were 0.42 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36, 0.47) and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.81, 0.86), and for the alternative neighboring approach, sensitivity and specificity values were 0.73 (95% CI: 0.67, 0.78) and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.93), respectively. The combined diagnostic accuracy of T2-weighted MR imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging, and MR spectroscopy for peripheral zone tumors was examined by calculating their predictive value with different combinations of techniques; T2-weighted MR imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging, and MR spectroscopy provided significant independent and additive predictive value when GEEs were used (P < .001, P = .02, P = .002, respectively). CONCLUSION Multiparametric MR imaging (T2-weighted MR imaging, MR spectroscopy, dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging) of the prostate at 3 T enables tumor detection, with reasonable sensitivity and specificity values.
The Journal of Urology | 2011
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.
European Urology | 2013
M. Minhaj Siddiqui; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Hong Truong; Lambros Stamatakis; Srinivas Vourganti; Jeffrey W. Nix; Anthony N. Hoang; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Brian Shuch; Michael Weintraub; Jochen Kruecker; Hayet Amalou; Baris Turkbey; Maria J. Merino; Peter L. Choyke; Bradford J. Wood; Peter A. Pinto
BACKGROUND Gleason scores from standard, 12-core prostate biopsies are upgraded historically in 25-33% of patients. Multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) with ultrasound (US)-targeted fusion biopsy may better sample the true gland pathology. OBJECTIVE The rate of Gleason score upgrading from an MRI/US-fusion-guided prostate-biopsy platform is compared with a standard 12-core biopsy regimen alone. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS There were 582 subjects enrolled from August 2007 through August 2012 in a prospective trial comparing systematic, extended 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsies to targeted MRI/US-fusion-guided prostate biopsies performed during the same biopsy session. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The highest Gleason score from each biopsy method was compared. INTERVENTIONS An MRI/US-fusion-guided platform with electromagnetic tracking was used for the performance of the fusion-guided biopsies. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS A diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) was made in 315 (54%) of the patients. Addition of targeted biopsy led to Gleason upgrading in 81 (32%) cases. Targeted biopsy detected 67% more Gleason ≥4+3 tumors than 12-core biopsy alone and missed 36% of Gleason ≤3+4 tumors, thus mitigating the detection of lower-grade disease. Conversely, 12-core biopsy led to upgrading in 67 (26%) cases over targeted biopsy alone but only detected 8% more Gleason ≥4+3 tumors. On multivariate analysis, MP-MRI suspicion was associated with Gleason score upgrading in the targeted lesions (p<0.001). The main limitation of this study was that definitive pathology from radical prostatectomy was not available. CONCLUSIONS MRI/US-fusion-guided biopsy upgrades and detects PCa of higher Gleason score in 32% of patients compared with traditional 12-core biopsy alone. Targeted biopsy technique preferentially detects higher-grade PCa while missing lower-grade tumors.
The Journal of Urology | 2011
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 | 2013
Caroline M. Moore; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Mark Emberton; Jurgen J. Fütterer; Inderbir S. Gill; Robert L. Grubb; Boris Hadaschik; Laurence Klotz; Daniel Margolis; Leonard S. Marks; Jonathan Melamed; Aytekin Oto; Suzanne Palmer; Peter A. Pinto; P. Puech; Shonit Punwani; Andrew B. Rosenkrantz; Ivo G. Schoots; Richard Simon; Samir S. Taneja; Baris Turkbey; Osamu Ukimura; Jan van der Meulen; A. Villers; Yuji Watanabe
BACKGROUND A systematic literature review of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted prostate biopsy demonstrates poor adherence to the Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) recommendations for the full and transparent reporting of diagnostic studies. OBJECTIVE To define and recommend Standards of Reporting for MRI-targeted Biopsy Studies (START). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Each member of a panel of 23 experts in urology, radiology, histopathology, and methodology used the RAND/UCLA appropriateness methodology to score a 258-statement premeeting questionnaire. The collated responses were presented at a face-to-face meeting, and each statement was rescored after group discussion. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Measures of agreement and consensus were calculated for each statement. The most important statements, based on group median score, the degree of group consensus, and the content of the group discussion, were used to create a checklist of reporting criteria (the START checklist). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS The strongest recommendations were to report histologic results of standard and targeted cores separately using Gleason score and maximum cancer core length. A table comparing detection rates of clinically significant and clinically insignificant disease by targeted and standard approaches should also be used. It was recommended to report the recruitment criteria for MRI-targeted biopsy, prior biopsy status of the population, a brief description of the MRI sequences, MRI reporting method, radiologist experience, and image registration technique. There was uncertainty about which histologic criteria constitute clinically significant cancer when the prostate is sampled using MRI-targeted biopsy, and it was agreed that a new definition of clinical significance in this setting needed to be derived in future studies. CONCLUSIONS Use of the START checklist would improve the quality of reporting in MRI-targeted biopsy studies and facilitate a comparison between standard and MRI-targeted approaches.
Computer Aided Surgery | 2008
Sheng Xu; Jochen Kruecker; Baris Turkbey; Neil Glossop; Anurag K. Singh; Peter L. Choyke; Peter A. Pinto; Bradford J. Wood
Targeted prostate biopsy is challenging because no currently established imaging modality is both accurate for prostate cancer diagnosis and cost-effective for real-time procedure guidance. A system that fuses real-time transrectal ultrasound images with previously acquired endorectal coil MRI images for prostate biopsy guidance is presented here. The system uses electromagnetic tracking and intraoperative image registration to superimpose the MRI data on the ultrasound image. Prostate motion is tracked and compensated for without the need for fiducial markers. The accuracy of the system in phantom studies was shown to be 2.4 ± 1.2 mm. The fusion system has been used in more than 20 patients to guide biopsies with almost no modification of the conventional protocol. Retrospective clinical evaluation suggests that clinically acceptable spatial accuracy can be achieved.
The Journal of Urology | 2012
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.
American Journal of Roentgenology | 2009
Baris Turkbey; Paul S. Albert; Karen Kurdziel; Peter L. Choyke
OBJECTIVE Prostate cancer is the most common noncutaneous malignancy among men in the Western world. Imaging has recently become more important in the diagnosis, local staging, and treatment follow-up of prostate cancer. In this article, we review conventional and functional imaging methods as well as targeted imaging approaches with novel tracers used in the diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer. CONCLUSION Although prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in men, imaging of localized prostate cancer remains limited. Recent developments in imaging technologies, particularly MRI and PET, may lead to significant improvements in lesion detection and staging.
Cancer | 2013
Lambros Stamatakis; M. Minhaj Siddiqui; Jeffrey W. Nix; Jennifer Logan; Soroush Rais-Bahrami; Annerleim Walton-Diaz; Anthony N. Hoang; Srinivas Vourganti; Hong Truong; Brian Shuch; Howard L. Parnes; Baris Turkbey; Peter L. Choyke; Bradford J. Wood; Richard M. Simon; Peter A. Pinto
Active surveillance (AS) is an attempt to avoid overtreatment of clinically insignificant prostate cancer (PCa); however, patient selection remains controversial. Multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MP‐MRI) may help better select AS candidates.
American Journal of Roentgenology | 2012
Sadhna Verma; Baris Turkbey; Naira Muradyan; Arumugam Rajesh; F. Cornud; Masoom A. Haider; Peter L. Choyke; Mukesh G. Harisinghani
OBJECTIVE This article is a primer on the technical aspects of performing a high-quality dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) examination of the prostate gland. CONCLUSION DCE-MRI is emerging as a useful clinical technique as part of a multi-parametric approach for evaluating the extent of primary and recurrent prostate cancer. Performing a high-quality DCE-MRI examination requires a good understanding of the technical aspects and limitations of image acquisition and postprocessing techniques.