<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.2d1 20170631//EN" "JATS-journalpublishing1.dtd">
      <JournalTitle>International Journal of Clinical Investigation and Case Reports</JournalTitle>
      <Volume-Issue>Volume 1, Issue 3</Volume-Issue>
      <ArticleTitle>Are there Detection Rate Differences of Transperineal Freehand US/MRI Fusion Target Prostate Biopsy in Two Different Patient Settings: Under Local Anesthesia or Under Deep Sedation?</ArticleTitle>
          <FirstName>Sebastiano Di Lena</FirstName>
      <Abstract>Introduction: MRI-targeted prostate biopsy is the best diagnostic tool for clinically significant Prostate Cancer (PCa) detection. However, compared to the cognitive approach, the superiority of the approach with US/MRI fusion software for the detection rate is still unanswered. The study aim to assess possible differences in the detection rate of transperineal Freehand US/MRI fusion target prostate biopsy using the Esaote MyLabTM9 System in two different settings: outpatient setting with local anesthesia and patients undergoing deep sedation.&#13;
Materials and Methods: A retrospective monocentric study was carried out at “San Pio” Hospital of Castellaneta, Italy, including 81 patients undergoing transperineal prostate biopsy from January 2021 to June 2022. The fusion biopsy was performed under local anesthesia or under deep sedation. All the enrolled patients performed a multiparametric prostate MRI before undergoing a prostate biopsy. All the Freehand US/MRI fusion target prostate biopsies were performed using the Esaote MyLabTM9 System, standard sampling, and targeted sampling. We evaluated the detection rate differences between the local anesthesia approach and that under deep sedation.&#13;
Results: There are no statistically significant differences between the two approaches to PI-RADS 4 (p&gt;0,05; p=0,63) and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 5 lesions.&#13;
Conclusion: These data highlight the lack of potential detection rate benefits of the deep sedation approach over the procedure under local anesthesia.</Abstract>
      <Keywords>Transperineal Prostate Biopsy ,Fusion-Targeted Biopsy ,Diagnosis,Magnetic Resonance Imaging,Prostate Cancer ,Detection Rate</Keywords>
        <Abstract>https://ijcicr.com/ubijournal-v1copy/journals/abstract.php?article_id=14219&amp;title=Are there Detection Rate Differences of Transperineal Freehand US/MRI Fusion Target Prostate Biopsy in Two Different Patient Settings: Under Local Anesthesia or Under Deep Sedation?</Abstract>
        <References>Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M,et al.MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(19):1767-1777.&#13;
	Exterkate L, Wegelin O, Barentsz JO, et al. Is There Still a Need for Repeated Systematic Biopsies in Patients with Previous Negative Biopsies in the Era of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsies of the Prostate? Eur Urol Oncol. 2020;3(2):216-223.&#13;
	Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo G, et al. Prostate cancer detection at repeat biopsy: can pelvic phased-array multiparametric MRI replace saturation biopsy? Anticancer Res. 2013;33(3):1195-1199.&#13;
	Majchrzak N, Cie?li?ski P, Milecki T, et al. Analysis of the usefulness of magnetic resonance imaging and clinical parameters in the detection of prostate cancer in the first systematic biopsy combined with targeted cognitive biopsy. Cent European J Urol. 2021;74(3):321-326.&#13;
	Marco R and Sebastiano DL. Transperineal Freehand US/MRI Fusion Target Prostate Biopsy using the Esaote MylabTM9 System: A Step by Step Guide. J Dise Dis Tre. 2022;2(3):1-3.&#13;
	Morgan P, Boon K, Rachel E, et al. MRI-guided in-bore biopsy for prostate cancer: what does the evidence say? A case series of 554 patients and a review of the current literature. World J Urol. 2019.&#13;
	Yasuhiro Y, Osamu U, Masatomo K, et al. Moving away from systematic biopsies: image-guided prostate biopsy (in-bore biopsy, cognitive fusion biopsy, MRUS fusion biopsy)-literature review. World J Urol. 2021.&#13;
	Bhavan PR, Christoph M, Bhaskar KS, Panagiotis K, Udo N, and Theodoros T. Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-guided Transperineal Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-guided Transrectal Prostate Biopsy-A Systematic Review. 2021;4(6):904-913.&#13;
	Bass EJ, Donaldson IA, Freeman A, et al.Emberton M, Ahmed HU. Magnetic resonance imaging targeted transperineal prostate biopsy: a local anaesthetic approach. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017;20(3):311-317.&#13;
	Smith CP, Tand;uuml;rkbey B. PI-RADS v2: Current standing and future outlook. Turk J Urol. 2018;44(3):189-194.&#13;
	Scott R, Misser SK, Cioni D, and Neri E. PI-RADS v2.1: What has changed and how to report. SA J Radiol. 2021;25(1):2062.&#13;
	Blake BA, Daniel TO, Aria AR, et al. Extraprostatic Extension Is Extremely Rare for Contemporary Gleason Score 6 Prostate Cancer. Prostate Cancer. 2017;72(3):455-460.&#13;
	Kuru TH, Roethke MC, Seidenader J, et al. Critical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging targeted, transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal fusion biopsy for detection of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2013;190(4):1380-1386.&#13;
	Fascelli M, George AK, Frye T, Turkbey B, Choyke PL, and Pinto PA. The role of MRI in active surveillance for prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep. 2015;16(6):42.</References>