Why Fusion Biopsy for prostate cancer with Focal Healthcare

Why Fusion Biopsy?

Traditionally, men suspected of having prostate cancer are diagnosed through systematic biopsies that are performed under ultrasound imaging guidance. In this procedure, urologists take 12- 15 biopsy samples at random and hope they find cancer if it is present. Unfortunately, traditional biopsies can miss cancer in 25% of men who have it!¹ Moreover, if cancer is detected, it is very challenging to determine its extent and severity to recommend the best treatment. This often causes the under treatment of men with serious disease and over-treatment of men with indolent disease, leading to serious side-effects and unnecessary stress for prostate cancer patients and their families.

Traditional biopsies can miss cancer in 25% of men who have it.¹

MR/Ultrasound fusion biopsies have been shown to greatly improve prostate cancer diagnosis compared to systematic biopsies. With magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, clinicians are better able to distinguish cancerous tissue from normal tissue, however several challenges limit the usefulness of MRI-guided biopsy procedures. In an MR/Ultrasound fusion biopsy, MR image information is fused with real-time ultrasound images to allow clinicians to take targeted biopsy samples directly from MR identified suspicious cancer regions. This method allows trained clinicians to diagnose up to 30% more high-risk prostate cancers than systematic biopsies.²

Unfortunately, only a small percentage of men currently have access to the better patient care provided by MR/Ultrasound fusion biopsy. Focal Healthcare aims to change that with our fusion technology.


¹Tiara AV, Merrick GS, Galbreath RW, et all. Performance of transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy in detecting prostate cancer in the initial and repeat biopsy setting. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2010;13(1):71-7

²Siddiqui, M.M. 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. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.17942