Cancer Res Treat.  2020 Jul;52(3):714-721. 10.4143/crt.2019.716.

Diagnostic Accuracy and Value of Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Ultrasound Fusion Transperineal Targeted and Template Systematic Prostate Biopsy Based on Bi-parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging

• Noh TI
• Tae JH
• Kim HK
• Shim JS
• Kang SG
• Sung DJ
• Cheon J
• Lee JG
• Kang SH

• KMID: 2504453
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2019.716

Abstract

Purpose
The purpose of this study was to investigate the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–ultrasound (US) fusion transperineal targeted biopsy (FTB) and fusion template systematic biopsy (FSB) for prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) (intermediate/high grade [Gleason score ≥ 3+4]) based on bi-parametric MRI (bpMRI).
Materials and methods
Retrospectively, we analyzed 300 patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen (≥ 4.0 ng/mL) and/or abnormal findings in a digital rectal examination at the Korea University Hospital. All 300 men underwent bpMRI-US fusion transperineal FTB and FSB in the period from April 2017 to March 2019.
Results
PCas were detected in 158 of 300 men (52.7%), and the prevalence of csPCa was 34.0%. CsPCas were detected in 12 of 102 (11.8%) with Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3, 42 of 92 (45.7%) with PI-RADS 4, respectively; and 45 of 62 (72.6%) men with PI-RADS 5, respectively. BpMRI showed a sensitivity of 95.1% and negative predictive value of 89.6% for csPCa. FTB detected additional csPCa in 33 men (12.9%) compared to FSB. Compared to FTB, FSB detected additional csPCa in 10 men (3.9%).
Conclusion
BpMRI-US FTB and FSB improved detection of PCa and csPCa. The accuracy of bi-parametric MRI is comparable with that of multi-parametric MRI. Further, it is rapid, simpler, cheaper, and no side effects of contrast media. Therefore, it is expected that bpMRI-US transperineal FTB and FSB could be a good alternative to conventional US-guided transrectal biopsy, which is the current gold standard.

Keyword

Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostatic neoplasms; Transperineal biopsy

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Diagnostic accuracy and value of MRI-US fusion transperineal targeted and systematic biopsy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. bpMRI-US, bi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging–ultrasound; ROI, regions of interest; PI-RADS, Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System; FTB, fusion transperineal targeted biopsy; FSB, fusion template systematic biopsy.

Reference

References

1. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017; 389:815–22.

2. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018; 378:1767–77.

3. Drost FH, Osses DF, Nieboer D, Steyerberg EW, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ, et al. Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019; 4:CD012663.

4. Bonekamp D, Schelb P, Wiesenfarth M, Kuder TA, Deister F, Stenzinger A, et al. Histopathological to multiparametric MRI spatial mapping of extended systematic sextant and MR/TRUS-fusion-targeted biopsy of the prostate. Eur Radiol. 2019; 29:1820–30.

5. Radtke JP, Schwab C, Wolf MB, Freitag MT, Alt CD, Kesch C, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy for index tumor detection: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimen. Eur Urol. 2016; 70:846–53.

6. Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MG. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015; 68:438–50.

7. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 2016; 69:16–40.

8. Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V, Eggener S, Emberton M, Futterer JJ, Gill IS, et al. Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. Eur Urol. 2013; 64:544–52.

9. Barrett T, Turkbey B, Choyke PL. PI-RADS version 2: what you need to know. Clin Radiol. 2015; 70:1165–76.

10. Futterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P, Emberton M, Giannarini G, Kirkham A, et al. Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2015; 68:1045–53.

11. Andreoiu M, Cheng L. Multifocal prostate cancer: biologic, prognostic, and therapeutic implications. Hum Pathol. 2010; 41:781–93.

12. Le JD, Tan N, Shkolyar E, Lu DY, Kwan L, Marks LS, et al. Multifocality and prostate cancer detection by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. Eur Urol. 2015; 67:569–76.

13. Wang RS, Kim EH, Vetter JM, Fowler KJ, Shetty AS, Mintz AJ, et al. Determination of the role of negative magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate in clinical practice: is biopsy still necessary? Urology. 2017; 102:190–7.

14. Parry MA, Srivastava S, Ali A, Cannistraci A, Antonello J, Barros-Silva JD, et al. Genomic evaluation of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-visible and -nonvisible lesions in clinically localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019; 2:1–11.

15. Rouviere O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, Claudon M, Roy C, Mege-Lechevallier F, et al. Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol. 2019; 20:100–9.

16. van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israel B, Hendriks R, Padhani AR, Hoogenboom M, et al. Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naive men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol. 2019; 75:570–8.

17. Rais-Bahrami S, Siddiqui MM, Vourganti S, Turkbey B, Rastinehad AR, Stamatakis L, et al. Diagnostic value of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an adjunct to prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based detection of prostate cancer in men without prior biopsies. BJU Int. 2015; 115:381–8.

18. Porter KK, King A, Galgano SJ, Sherrer RL, Gordetsky JB, RaisBahrami S. Financial implications of biparametric prostate MRI. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020; 23:88–93.

19. Grignon DJ. Prostate cancer reporting and staging: needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. Mod Pathol. 2018; 31:S96–109.

20. Xiang J, Yan H, Li J, Wang X, Chen H, Zheng X. Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2019; 17:31.

21. Shoji S. Magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion image-guided prostate biopsy: current status of the cancer detection and the prospects of tailor-made medicine of the prostate cancer. Investig Clin Urol. 2019; 60:4–13.

22. Ali A, Hoyle A, Baena E, Clarke NW. Identification and evaluation of clinically significant prostate cancer: a step towards personalized diagnosis. Curr Opin Urol. 2017; 27:217–24.

23. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George AK, Rothwax J, Shakir N, et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA. 2015; 313:390–7.

24. Park KJ, Kim MH, Kim JK, Cho KS. Characterization and PI-RADS version 2 assessment of prostate cancers missed by prebiopsy 3-T multiparametric MRI: correlation with whole-mount thin-section histopathology. Clin Imaging. 2019; 55:174–80.

25. Mai Z, Zhou Z, Yan W, Xiao Y, Zhou Y, Liang Z, et al. The transverse and vertical distribution of prostate cancer in biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. BMC Cancer. 2018; 18:1205.

26. Priester A, Natarajan S, Khoshnoodi P, Margolis DJ, Raman SS, Reiter RE, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging underestimation of prostate cancer geometry: use of patient specific molds to correlate images with whole mount pathology. J Urol. 2017; 197:320–6.

27. Borghesi M, Ahmed H, Nam R, Schaeffer E, Schiavina R, Taneja S, et al. Complications after systematic, random, and image-guided prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2017; 71:353–65.

28. Hu Y, Ahmed HU, Carter T, Arumainayagam N, Lecornet E, Barzell W, et al. A biopsy simulation study to assess the accuracy of several transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-biopsy strategies compared with template prostate mapping biopsies in patients who have undergone radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2012; 110:812–20.