Bring clarity to prostate cancer diagnosis
Improving prostate cancer detection for more patients
Do you want to learn how Philips can help?
Join us at AUA 2022
See the latest Philips has to offer in prostate cancer care at #AUA22 May 13-15th in New Orleans, LA. Schedule a meeting with us now.Join us at EAU 2022
Now hosted July 1-4, 2022, join us in Amsterdam to see Philips latest solutions in prostate cancer care. Schedule a meeting with us now.
Precise, personalized care starts here
Early and accurate diagnosis leads to clear options for treatment. Unfortunately, standard TRUS prostate biopsies are often imprecise, with the ability to detect only 30-41% of cancers.1 Philips offers a comprehensive prostate cancer diagnosis solution in utilizing MRI/US fusion that is in use at 22 of the 25 of the top cancer hospitals in the US.2 This unified, orchestrated approach to prostate cancer diagnosis and care has significant benefits for clinical teams and for patients.
This more targeted approach can benefit patients by potentially reducing instances of biopsy-related hospitalization, decreasing likelihood of sepsis, and most importantly, avoiding the need for repeat biopsies.3 Whichever method is chosen, ensuring that patients have the highest quality care possible can be complicated given the many specialties involved in the prostate cancer journey, such as urology, radiology, pathology, genomics and oncology. Inefficient and disconnected workflows further complicate the picture.
Did you know?
Prostate cancer is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide4
TRUS is still the most common form of biopsy for prostate cancer detection, but MRI-targeted biopsies have been shown to improve diagnosis of high-risk cancers by 30%5
Due to inaccurate risk profiling, up to 40% of aggressive prostate cancers are undertreated6 and up to 50% of insignificant prostate cancers are overtreated7
Troubling inequities
Research suggests that prostate cancer is most prevalent in men of African descent, compared to men of European or Asian descent8
High-quality prostate cancer care is personalized for each patient
Philips provides the tools needed for patient-centered MR imaging, advanced visualization and reporting, MR/fusion-guided biopsies, digital pathology and genomic insights. This integrated approach unites urology, radiology, pathology, genomics and oncology with an end-to-end flow of data that streamlines workflows, enhances collaboration for more confidence, delivers meaningful insights and helps support quality of life for patients with prostate cancer. Our clinical solutions can further enhance the patient experience by reducing unnecessary biopsies and post-procedure complications.
Key capabilities for clarity in prostate cancer diagnosis
-
UroNav
- MR/US guided fusion biopsy system
- Transperineal or transrectal options
- Targeted biopsy
784026 -
DynaCAD Prostate
- Advanced post-processing image analysis
- Standardized reporting
- Access virtually anywhere
784029 -
DynaCAD Urology
- View MR images and segmentation data
- Plan treatment steps and follow-up
- Gain time and workflow efficiencies
784044
-
![Compressed SENSE]()
Compressed SENSE
Click here to learn more -
![MRI in-bore experience]()
MRI in-bore experience
Click here to learn more -
![Philips IntelliSite Pathology Solution]()
Philips IntelliSite Pathology Solution
Click here to learn more -
![Genomics Workspace]()
Genomics Workspace
Click here to learn more
Look to the leaders
Philips solutions for prostate cancer diagnosis are in use at 22 of the top 25 ranked US hospitals for cancer2
Results you can measure
Our clinical solutions can enhance detection and improve the patient experience by reducing unnecessary biopsies and potentially reducing post-procedure complications. Digital pathology saves time and resources through streamlined collaborative features and case management tools.
+30%
improvement in high-risk prostate cancer diagnosis using fusion biopsy vs standard biopsy5
-13.3%
reduction in pathological upgrading to clinically significant prostate cancer with targeted and systematic biopsies vs systematic biopsies alone5
+10%
increase in cancers identified with combined targeted and systematic biopsy compared to systematic biopsy alone9
+19
hours/day saved through increased lab efficiency by using digital pathology workflows10
+50%
faster MRI scans using Compressed SENSE with virtually equal image quality11
Would you like to know more about how we can help your prostate cancer program?
Philips can assess where you are today so you can build an approach to improve prostate cancer diagnosis by integrating urology, radiology, pathology, genomics, oncology and patient engagement. Discover how we can help you implement, manage and grow your prostate care program.
Dive deeper
Related solutions
References
Results from case studies are not predictive of results in other cases. Results in other cases may vary.
1. Choi YH, et al. Comparison of cancer detection rates between TRUS-guided biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy according to PSA level in biopsy-naive patients: a propensity score matching analysis. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019 Feb;17(1):e19-e25. doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2018.09.007. Epub 2018 Sep 13. PMID: 30415878.
2. U.S. News and World Report: 2017 Best Hospitals Ranking (Cancer)
3. Yarlagadda VK, et al. MRI/US fusion-guided prostate biopsy allows for equivalent cancer detection with significantly fewer needle cores in biopsy-naive men. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2018 May-Jun;24(3):115-120. doi: 10.5152/dir.2018.17422. PMID: 29770762; PMCID: PMC5951198.
4. Sung H, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021.71:209-249. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660
5. Siddiqui MM, et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion–guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA. 2015;313(4):390-397.
6. Sonn GA, et al. Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion device. J Urol. 2013 Jan;189(1):86-91. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.095. Epub 2012 Nov 14. PMID: 23158413; PMCID: PMC3561472.
7. Loeb S, et al. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014 Jun;65(6):1046-55. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.062.
8. Rebbeck TR, et al. Temporal trends and racial disparities in global prostate cancer prevalence. Can J Urol. 2014 Oct;21(5):7496-506. PMID: 25347377; PMCID: PMC4955669.
9. Ahdoot M, et al. MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis. NEMJ. 2020382:917–928. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910038
10. Baidoshvili A, et al. Evaluating the benefits of digital pathology implementation: time savings in laboratory logistics. Histopathology. 2018 Nov;73(5):784-794. doi: 10.1111/his.13691. Epub 2018 Aug 13. PMID: 29924891.
11. Compared to Philips scans without Compressed SENSE.
Results from case studies are not predictive of results in other cases. Results in other cases may vary.
1. Choi YH, et al. Comparison of cancer detection rates between TRUS-guided biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy according to PSA level in biopsy-naive patients: a propensity score matching analysis. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019 Feb;17(1):e19-e25. doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2018.09.007. Epub 2018 Sep 13. PMID: 30415878.
2. U.S. News and World Report: 2017 Best Hospitals Ranking (Cancer)
3. Yarlagadda VK, et al. MRI/US fusion-guided prostate biopsy allows for equivalent cancer detection with significantly fewer needle cores in biopsy-naive men. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2018 May-Jun;24(3):115-120. doi: 10.5152/dir.2018.17422. PMID: 29770762; PMCID: PMC5951198.
4. Sung H, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021.71:209-249. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660
5. Siddiqui MM, et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion–guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA. 2015;313(4):390-397.
6. Sonn GA, et al. Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion device. J Urol. 2013 Jan;189(1):86-91. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.095. Epub 2012 Nov 14. PMID: 23158413; PMCID: PMC3561472.
7. Loeb S, et al. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014 Jun;65(6):1046-55. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.062.
8. Rebbeck TR, et al. Temporal trends and racial disparities in global prostate cancer prevalence. Can J Urol. 2014 Oct;21(5):7496-506. PMID: 25347377; PMCID: PMC4955669.
9. Ahdoot M, et al. MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis. NEMJ. 2020382:917–928. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910038
10. Baidoshvili A, et al. Evaluating the benefits of digital pathology implementation: time savings in laboratory logistics. Histopathology. 2018 Nov;73(5):784-794. doi: 10.1111/his.13691. Epub 2018 Aug 13. PMID: 29924891.
11. Compared to Philips scans without Compressed SENSE.
You are about to visit a Philips global content page
You are about to visit the Philips USA website.
You are about to visit a Philips global content page
You are about to visit the Philips USA website.