The use of MRI/ultrasound fusion biopsy in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer

Introduction. Standard prostate biopsy with subsequent histological verification is now an integral part of the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PC); however, the number of false-negative results and cases of underestimation of the degree of tumor aggressiveness remain excessively high. The active and massive clinical introduction of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in combination with hybrid technologies, such as MRI/ultrasound fusion biopsy, can significantly increase the detection rate of moderate- and high-risk cancers.

Materials and methods. This investigation covered 33 patients with suspected PC that was detected in 69.7 % of the patients.

Results. The comparative histological results from targeted and standard prostate biopsies showed the detection rate of clinically significant cancer (a total Gleason score of ≥7), which was equal to 86.7 and 66.7 %, respectively. The results of targeted biopsy were statistically significantly (correlation coefficient r = 0.8; p <0.0001) similar to those of standard biopsy in terms of the degree of identifying nodules with the highest malignancy potential; at the same time a regression analysis revealed that the accuracy of high-risk cancer detection in the target biopsy was higher than that of standard biopsy (p <0.0001). Thus, MRI/ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy demonstrated a lower sensitivity in detecting clinically insignificant PC than standard biopsy. Data of mpMRT with grading in accordance with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADSv2) showed a statistically significant correlation with the results of the targeted biopsy (correlation coefficient r = 0.7; p <0.02). 

Conclusion. The further vector of development of prostate biopsy will most likely be reduced to the concept of targeted, or “sighted”, biopsy, which in turn can significantly increase the detection rate of clinically significant forms of PC, rightly define the clinical stage of the disease, and correctly stratify risks.

1. Scattoni V., Maccagnano C., Capitanio U. et al. Random biopsy: when, how many and where to take the cores? World J Urol 2014;32(4):859–69. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-014-1335-0. PMID: 24908067.

2. Presti J. C. Prostate biopsy: how many cores are enough? Urol Oncol 2003;21(2):135–40. PMID: 12856642.

3. Bjurlin M. A., Wysock J. S., Taneja S. S. Optimization of prostate biopsy: review of technique and complications. Urol Clin North Am 2014;41(2):299–313. DOI: 10.1016/j.ucl.2014.01.011. PMID: 24725491.

4. Djavan B., Milani S., Remzi M. Prostate biopsy: who, how and when. An update. Can J Urol 2005;12(Suppl 1):44–8. PMID: 15780165.

5. Rodríguez-Covarrubias F., González-Ramírez A., Aguilar-Davidov B. et al. Extended sampling at first biopsy improves cancer detection rate: results of a prospective, randomized trial comparing 12 versus 18-core prostate biopsy. J Urol 2011;185(6):2132–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.010. PMID: 21496851.

6. Ploussard G., Nicolaiew N., Marchand C. et al. Prospective evaluation of an extended 21- core biopsy scheme as initial prostate cancer diagnostic strategy. Eur Urol 2014;65(1):154–61. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.049. PMID: 22698576.

7. Weiner A. B., Patel S. G., Etzioni R. et al. National trends in the management of low and intermediate risk prostate cancer in the United States. J Urol 2015;193(1):95–102. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.07.111. PMID: 25106900.

8. Pokorny M. R., De Rooij M., Duncan E. et al. Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. Eur Urol 2014;66(1):22–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.03.002. PMID: 24666839.

9. Sonn G. A., Chang E., Natarajan S. et al. Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate- specific antigen. Eur Urol 2014;65(4):809–15. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.025. PMID: 23523537.

10. Weinreb J. C., Barentsz J. O., Choyke P. L. et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging – reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 2016;69(1):16–40. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052. PMID: 26427566.

11. Barentsz J. O., Richenberg J., Clements R. et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22(4):746–57. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y. PMID: 22322308.

12. Somford D. M., Hamoen E. H., Fütterer J. J. et al. The predictive value of endorectal 3 Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for extraprostatic extension in patients with low, intermediate and high risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2013;190(5): 1728–34. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.021. PMID: 23680307.

13. Delongchamps N. B., Zerbib M. Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. Eur Urol 2012;61(3):622–3. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.12.038. PMID: 22289974.

14. Hoeks C. M., Schouten M. G., Bomers J. G. et al. Three-tesla magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy in men with increased prostate-specific antigen and repeated, negative, random, systematic, transrectal ultrasound biopsies: detection of clinically significant prostate cancers. Eur Urol 2012;62(5):902–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.047. PMID: 22325447.

15. Rosenkrantz A. B., Verma S., Choyke P. et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a prior negative biopsy: a consensus statement by AUA and SAR. J Urol 2016;196(6):1613–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.079. PMID: 27320841.

16. Cash H., Maxeiner A., Stephan C. et al. The detection of significant prostate cancer is correlated with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) in MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. World J Urol 2016;34(4): 525–32. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-015-1671-8. PMID: 26293117.