Biopsies prostatiques sous guidage \'echographique 3D et temps r\'eel (4D) sur fant\^ome. Etude comparative versus guidage 2D
Jean-Alexandre Long (TIMC), Vincent Daanen (TIMC), Alexandre, Moreau-Gaudry (TIMC, CHU-Grenoble CIC), Jocelyne Troccaz (TIMC), Jean-Jacques, Rambeaud, Jean-Luc Descotes

TL;DR
This study compares 2D and 3D ultrasound guidance for prostate biopsies using phantoms, demonstrating that 3D guidance significantly improves accuracy over 2D methods.
Contribution
It provides a comparative analysis of 2D versus 3D ultrasound guidance for prostate biopsies on phantom models, highlighting the advantages of 3D imaging.
Findings
3D ultrasound guidance improves biopsy accuracy
Significant difference in performance between 2D and 3D methods
Phantom studies validate the effectiveness of 3D guidance
Abstract
This paper analyzes the impact of using 2D or 3D ultrasound on the efficiency of prostate biopsies. The evaluation is performed on home-made phantoms. The study shows that the accuracy is significantly improved.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment · MRI in cancer diagnosis · AI in cancer detection
