1
|
Bass EJ, Pantovic A, Connor MJ, Loeb S, Rastinehad AR, Winkler M, Gabe R, Ahmed HU. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy techniques compared to transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2021; 25:174-179. [PMID: 34548624 PMCID: PMC9184263 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-021-00449-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/10/2021] [Revised: 08/10/2021] [Accepted: 08/20/2021] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
Background Multiparametric MRI localizes cancer in the prostate, allowing for MRI guided biopsy (MRI-GB) 43 alongside transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy (TRUS-GB). Three MRI-GB approaches exist; visual estimation (COG-TB); fusion software-assisted (FUS-TB) and MRI ‘in-bore’ biopsy (IB-TB). It is unknown whether any of these are superior. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to address three questions. First, whether MRI-GB is superior to TRUS-GB at detecting clinically significant PCa (csPCa). Second, whether MRI-GB is superior to TRUS-GB at avoiding detection of insignificant PCa. Third, whether any MRI-GB strategy is superior at detecting csPCa. Methods A systematic literature review from 2015 to 2019 was performed in accordance with the START recommendations. Studies reporting PCa detection rates, employing MRI-GB and TRUS-GB were included and evaluated using the QUADAS-2 checklist. 1553 studies were found, of which 43 were included in the meta-analysis. Results For csPCa, MRI-GB was superior in detection to TRUS-GB (0.83 vs. 0.63 [p = 0.02]). MRI-GB was superior in detection to TRUS-GB at avoiding detection of insignificant PCa. No MRI-GB technique was superior at detecting csPCa (IB-TB 0.87; COG TB 0.81; FUS-TB 0.81, [p = 0.55]). There was significant heterogeneity observed between the included studies. Conclusions In patients with suspected PCa on MRI, MRI-GB offers superior rates of csPCa detection and reduces detection of insignificant PCa compared to TRUS-GB. No individual MRI-GB technique was found to be better in csPCa detection. Prospective adequately powered randomized controlled trials are required.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E J Bass
- Imperial Prostate. Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK. .,Imperial Urology, Division of Cancer, Cardiovascular Medicine and Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
| | - A Pantovic
- Centre of Research Excellence in Nutrition and Metabolism, Institute for Medical Research -, Belgrade, Serbia
| | - M J Connor
- Imperial Prostate. Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.,Imperial Urology, Division of Cancer, Cardiovascular Medicine and Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - S Loeb
- Department of Urology and Population Health, New York University and Manhattan Veterans Affairs, New York, NY, USA
| | - A R Rastinehad
- Department of Urology, Lenox Hill Hospital at Northwell Health, New York, NY, USA
| | - M Winkler
- Imperial Prostate. Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.,Imperial Urology, Division of Cancer, Cardiovascular Medicine and Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Rhian Gabe
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - H U Ahmed
- Imperial Prostate. Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.,Imperial Urology, Division of Cancer, Cardiovascular Medicine and Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
van Luijtelaar A, Greenwood BM, Ahmed HU, Barqawi AB, Barret E, Bomers JGR, Brausi MA, Choyke PL, Cooperberg MR, Eggener S, Feller JF, Frauscher F, George AK, Hindley RG, Jenniskens SFM, Klotz L, Kovacs G, Lindner U, Loeb S, Margolis DJ, Marks LS, May S, Mcclure TD, Montironi R, Nour SG, Oto A, Polascik TJ, Rastinehad AR, De Reyke TM, Reijnen JS, de la Rosette JJMCH, Sedelaar JPM, Sperling DS, Walser EM, Ward JF, Villers A, Ghai S, Fütterer JJ. Focal laser ablation as clinical treatment of prostate cancer: report from a Delphi consensus project. World J Urol 2019; 37:2147-2153. [PMID: 30671638 PMCID: PMC6763411 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-019-02636-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2018] [Accepted: 01/10/2019] [Indexed: 01/11/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To define the role of focal laser ablation (FLA) as clinical treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) using the Delphi consensus method. METHODS A panel of international experts in the field of focal therapy (FT) in PCa conducted a collaborative consensus project using the Delphi method. Experts were invited to online questionnaires focusing on patient selection and treatment of PCa with FLA during four subsequent rounds. After each round, outcomes were displayed, and questionnaires were modified based on the comments provided by panelists. Results were finalized and discussed during face-to-face meetings. RESULTS Thirty-seven experts agreed to participate, and consensus was achieved on 39/43 topics. Clinically significant PCa (csPCa) was defined as any volume Grade Group 2 [Gleason score (GS) 3+4]. Focal therapy was specified as treatment of all csPCa and can be considered primary treatment as an alternative to radical treatment in carefully selected patients. In patients with intermediate-risk PCa (GS 3+4) as well as patients with MRI-visible and biopsy-confirmed local recurrence, FLA is optimal for targeted ablation of a specific magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-visible focus. However, FLA should not be applied to candidates for active surveillance and close follow-up is required. Suitability for FLA is based on tumor volume, location to vital structures, GS, MRI-visibility, and biopsy confirmation. CONCLUSION Focal laser ablation is a promising technique for treatment of clinically localized PCa and should ideally be performed within approved clinical trials. So far, only few studies have reported on FLA and further validation with longer follow-up is mandatory before widespread clinical implementation is justified.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A van Luijtelaar
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | | | - H U Ahmed
- Department of Surgery, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - A B Barqawi
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - E Barret
- L'Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France
| | - J G R Bomers
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - M A Brausi
- Department of Urology, AUSL Modena, Modena, Italy
| | - P L Choyke
- Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - M R Cooperberg
- University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - S Eggener
- Department of Urology, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - J F Feller
- Desert Medical Imaging, Indian Wells, CA, USA
| | - F Frauscher
- Medizinische Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - A K George
- Urologic Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - R G Hindley
- Department of Urology, Basingstoke Hospital, Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Basingstoke, UK
| | - S F M Jenniskens
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - L Klotz
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - G Kovacs
- Interdisciplinary Brachytherapy Unit, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
| | - U Lindner
- Department of Urology, Kaplan Medical Center, Rehovot, Israel
| | - S Loeb
- Department of Urology and Population Health, New York University and Manhattan Veterans Affairs Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - D J Margolis
- Department of Radiology, Ronald Reagan-UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - L S Marks
- Department of Urology, University of California-Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - S May
- Desert Medical Imaging, Indian Wells, CA, USA
| | - T D Mcclure
- Department of Urology, New York Presbyterian-Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA
| | - R Montironi
- Section of Pathological Anatomy, Polytechnic University of the Marche Region, School of Medicine, United Hospitals, Ancona, Italy
| | - S G Nour
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - A Oto
- Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - T J Polascik
- Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | | | - T M De Reyke
- Department of Urology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J S Reijnen
- Department of Radiology, Sørlandet Hospital, Kristiansand, Norway
| | - J J M C H de la Rosette
- Department of Urology, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey.,Amsterdam UMC University Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J P M Sedelaar
- Department of Urology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | | | - E M Walser
- Department of Radiology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA
| | - J F Ward
- Division of Surgery, Department of Urology, University of Texas, Houston, TX, USA
| | - A Villers
- Department of Urology, Lille University Medical Center, Lille, France
| | - S Ghai
- University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - J J Fütterer
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Scheltema MJ, Tay KJ, Postema AW, de Bruin DM, Feller J, Futterer JJ, George AK, Gupta RT, Kahmann F, Kastner C, Laguna MP, Natarajan S, Rais-Bahrami S, Rastinehad AR, de Reijke TM, Salomon G, Stone N, van Velthoven R, Villani R, Villers A, Walz J, Polascik TJ, de la Rosette JJMCH. Utilization of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in clinical practice and focal therapy: report from a Delphi consensus project. World J Urol 2016; 35:695-701. [PMID: 27637908 PMCID: PMC5397427 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-016-1932-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 49] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/01/2016] [Accepted: 09/06/2016] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose To codify the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for the interrogation of prostate neoplasia (PCa) in clinical practice and focal therapy (FT). Methods An international collaborative consensus project was undertaken using the Delphi method among experts in the field of PCa. An online questionnaire was presented in three consecutive rounds and modified each round based on the comments provided by the experts. Subsequently, a face-to-face meeting was held to discuss and finalize the consensus results. Results mpMRI should be performed in patients with prior negative biopsies if clinical suspicion remains, but not instead of the PSA test, nor as a stand-alone diagnostic tool or mpMRI-targeted biopsies only. It is not recommended to use a 1.5 Tesla MRI scanner without an endorectal or pelvic phased-array coil. mpMRI should be performed following standard biopsy-based PCa diagnosis in both the planning and follow-up of FT. If a lesion is seen, MRI-TRUS fusion biopsies should be performed for FT planning. Systematic biopsies are still required for FT planning in biopsy-naïve patients and for patients with residual PCa after FT. Standard repeat biopsies should be taken during the follow-up of FT. The final decision to perform FT should be based on histopathology. However, these consensus statements may differ for expert centers versus non-expert centers. Conclusions The mpMRI is an important tool for characterizing and targeting PCa in clinical practice and FT. Standardization of acquisition and reading should be the main priority to guarantee consistent mpMRI quality throughout the urological community. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00345-016-1932-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M J Scheltema
- Department of Urology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - K J Tay
- Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | - A W Postema
- Department of Urology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - D M de Bruin
- Department of Urology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Department of Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - J Feller
- Desert Medical Imaging, Indian Wells, CA, USA
| | - J J Futterer
- Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - A K George
- Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - R T Gupta
- Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | - F Kahmann
- Urologische Praxis Dr. Henkel and Dr. Kahmann, Berlin, Germany
| | - C Kastner
- CamPARI Prostate Cancer Clinic, Cambridge University Hospitals Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - M P Laguna
- Department of Urology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - S Natarajan
- Department of Urology, Surgery and Bioengineering, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - S Rais-Bahrami
- Department of Urology and Radiology, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA
| | - A R Rastinehad
- Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.,Department of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| | - T M de Reijke
- Department of Urology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - G Salomon
- Martini-Clinic Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - N Stone
- Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.,Department of Radiation Oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA
| | - R van Velthoven
- Department of Urology, Institut Jules Bordet, Brussels, Belgium
| | - R Villani
- Department of Radiology, North Shore University Hospital, Northwell Health, NY, USA
| | - A Villers
- Department of Urology, Lille University Medical Center, Lille, France
| | - J Walz
- Department of Urology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes Cancer Centre, Marseille, France
| | - T J Polascik
- Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Reddy BN, Bessede T, Reddy A, Nair S, Tewari AK, Rastinehad AR. Prostate biopsies: Available technique, approaches and diagnostic accuracy. ARCH ESP UROL 2016; 69:302-310. [PMID: 27416633] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/06/2023]
Abstract
Despite advances in the diagnosis of prostate cancer over the past century, it remains a leading cause of cancer related death. A recent recommendation against screening has further complicated the diagnosis and management of this condition. It remains to be demonstrated if newer diagnostic modalities will have an impact on mortality rates. Most certainly, not all prostate cancers need to be diagnosed, and methods of accurately diagnosing those cancers that lead to death needs more work. In this review article, we describe the different techniques, approaches and diagnostic accuracies of the currently used biopsy methods.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B N Reddy
- Department of Urology. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. New York City. USA
| | - T Bessede
- Department of Urology. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. New York City. USA. U1195, Univ. Paris Sud. INSERM. Université Paris-Saclay. Le Kremlin-Bicetre. France. Department of Urology. Hopitaux Universitaires Paris-Sud. Le Kremlin-Bicetre. France
| | - A Reddy
- Department of Urology. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. New York City. USA
| | - S Nair
- Department of Urology. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. New York City. USA
| | - A K Tewari
- Department of Urology. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. New York City. USA
| | - A R Rastinehad
- Department of Urology. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. New York City. USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Postema AW, De Reijke TM, Ukimura O, Van den Bos W, Azzouzi AR, Barret E, Baumunk D, Blana A, Bossi A, Brausi M, Coleman JA, Crouzet S, Dominguez-Escrig J, Eggener S, Ganzer R, Ghai S, Gill IS, Gupta RT, Henkel TO, Hohenfellner M, Jones JS, Kahmann F, Kastner C, Köhrmann KU, Kovacs G, Miano R, van Moorselaar RJ, Mottet N, Osorio L, Pieters BR, Polascik TJ, Rastinehad AR, Salomon G, Sanchez-Salas R, Schostak M, Sentker L, Tay KJ, Varkarakis IM, Villers A, Walz J, De la Rosette JJ. Standardization of definitions in focal therapy of prostate cancer: report from a Delphi consensus project. World J Urol 2016; 34:1373-82. [PMID: 26892160 PMCID: PMC5026990 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-016-1782-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 48] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/31/2015] [Accepted: 02/02/2016] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To reach standardized terminology in focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS A four-stage modified Delphi consensus project was undertaken among a panel of international experts in the field of FT for PCa. Data on terminology in FT was collected from the panel by three rounds of online questionnaires. During a face-to-face meeting on June 21, 2015, attended by 38 experts, all data from the online rounds were reviewed and recommendations for definitions were formulated. RESULTS Consensus was attained on 23 of 27 topics; Targeted FT was defined as a lesion-based treatment strategy, treating all identified significant cancer foci; FT was generically defined as an anatomy-based (zonal) treatment strategy. Treatment failure due to the ablative energy inadequately destroying treated tissue is defined as ablation failure. In targeting failure the energy is not adequately applied to the tumor spatially and selection failure occurs when a patient was wrongfully selected for FT. No definition of biochemical recurrence can be recommended based on the current data. Important definitions for outcome measures are potency (minimum IIEF-5 score of 21), incontinence (new need for pads or leakage) and deterioration in urinary function (increase in IPSS >5 points). No agreement on the best quality of life tool was established, but UCLA-EPIC and EORTC-QLQ-30 were most commonly supported by the experts. A complete overview of statements is presented in the text. CONCLUSION Focal therapy is an emerging field of PCa therapeutics. Standardization of definitions helps to create comparable research results and facilitate clear communication in clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A W Postema
- Departments of Urology, AMC University Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - T M De Reijke
- Departments of Urology, AMC University Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - O Ukimura
- USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.,Department of Urology, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan
| | - W Van den Bos
- Departments of Urology, AMC University Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - A R Azzouzi
- Department of Urology, Angers University Hospital, Angers, France
| | - E Barret
- Department of Urology, Institut Montsouris, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France
| | - D Baumunk
- Department of Urology, Magdeburg University Medical Center, Magdeburg, Germany
| | - A Blana
- Department of Urology, Fuerth Hospital, Fuerth, Germany
| | - A Bossi
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Gustave Roussy Institute, Villejuif, France
| | - M Brausi
- Department of Urology, Ospedale Civile Ramazzini, Carpi, Italy
| | - J A Coleman
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - S Crouzet
- Department of Urology and Transplantation, Edouard Herriot Hospital, Lyon, France
| | - J Dominguez-Escrig
- Department of Urology, Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, Spain
| | - S Eggener
- Department of Urology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - R Ganzer
- Department of Urology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
| | - S Ghai
- Joint Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - I S Gill
- USC Institute of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - R T Gupta
- Departments of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | - T O Henkel
- Urologische Praxis Dr. Henkel & Dr. Kahmann, Berlin, Germany
| | - M Hohenfellner
- Department of Urology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - J S Jones
- Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - F Kahmann
- Urologische Praxis Dr. Henkel & Dr. Kahmann, Berlin, Germany
| | - C Kastner
- CamPARI Prostate Cancer Clinic, Cancer Directorate, Cambridge University Hospitals Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - K U Köhrmann
- Department of Urology, Theresien Krankenhaus Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
| | - G Kovacs
- Interdisciplinary Brachytherapy Unit, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
| | - R Miano
- Division of Urology, Department of Experimental Medicine and Surgery, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy
| | - R J van Moorselaar
- Department of Urology, Free University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - N Mottet
- Department of Urology, University Hospital St Etienne, Saint-Étienne, France
| | - L Osorio
- Department of Urology, Porto Hospital Centre, Porto, Portugal
| | - B R Pieters
- Departments of Radiation Oncology, AMC University Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - T J Polascik
- Departments of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | - A R Rastinehad
- Department of Urology, Hofstra North Shore-Lij, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, USA
| | - G Salomon
- Martini-Clinic Prostate Cancer Center, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
| | - R Sanchez-Salas
- Department of Urology, Institut Montsouris, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France
| | - M Schostak
- Department of Urology, Magdeburg University Medical Center, Magdeburg, Germany
| | - L Sentker
- Urologische Gemeinschaftspraxis, Sinsheim, Germany
| | - K J Tay
- Departments of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | - I M Varkarakis
- 2nd Department of Urology, Athens Medical University, University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - A Villers
- Department of Urology, Lille University Medical Center, Lille, France
| | - J Walz
- Department of Urology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France
| | - J J De la Rosette
- Departments of Urology, AMC University Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|