Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Power Doppler Sonography (PDS) and Modified TRUS Systematic Biopsies – Can this Combination Adequately Replace Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mp-MRI) in Candidates for Re Biopsies Who cannot Undergo mp-MRI

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pathology & Oncology Research

Abstract

The MRI targeted biopsy (MRI-TBx) may increase the detection rate of clinically significant cancer (csPCa) in candidates for re-biopsy. However, there will be several patients in whom MRI is contraindicated. In this retrospective study we assessed the ability of combination of PDS guided biopsies (PDS-TBx) and modified SBx to substitute MRI-TBx. 154 men with persistently elevated PSA were referred for re-biopsy. Our protocol included a combination of MRI-TBx, DPS-TBx and modified SBx with additional biopsies from anterior lateral horns and anterior aspects of apex. MRI findings were defined as suspicious lesions (MRI-SL) and highly suspicious lesions (MRI-HL), based on PIRADS scale. In 40 patients csPCa was detected. While, MRI diagnosed csPCa in 36 patients (23%, n-36/154): 25% and 92% of biopsies targeted to the MRI- SL and MRI-HSL confirmed csPCa. Thirty-eight PDS hypervascular areas were found, while csPCa was diagnosed in 84% of these lesions, or in 28 patients (18%, n-28/154). SBx detected csPCa in 34 cores or in 21 patients (13%, n – 21/154). SBx missed cancers in the in the anterior aspect of middle gland. Combination of PDS-TBx + SBx detected csPCa in 35 (88% of csPCa) patients. Strongest predictors for the csPCa presence were MRI-HSL, PDS’ lesions and biopsies from anterior aspect that included apex, mid gland and anterior lateral horns (p < 0.001 and p-0.008, respectively). The combination of PDS-TBx + SBx may miss 15% of csPCa detected by MRI. However, it can detect additional 10% of csPCa that were missed by MRI. To improve the accuracy of this combination, the anterior aspect of middle gland should be also included in the modified SBx. These changes in combination can make it helpful in candidates for re-biopsy who cannot undergo MRI.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Welch HG, Fisher ES, Gottlieb DJ, Barry MJ (2007) Detection of prostate cancer via biopsy in the Medicare–SEER population during the PSA era. J Natl Cancer Inst 99:1395–1400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Moore CM, Robertson NL, Arsanious N, Middleton T, Villers A, Klotz L, Taneja SS, Emberton M (2013) Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. Eur Urol 63:125–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sonn GA, Chang E, Natarajan S et al (2014) Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Eur Urol 65:809–815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC et al (2013) A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial. Eur Urol 66:343–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Salami SS, Ben-Levi E, Yaskiv O, Ryniker L, Turkbey B, Kavoussi LR, Villani R, Rastinehad AR (2015) In patients with a previous negative prostate biopsy and a suspicious lesion on magnetic resonance imaging, is a 12-core biopsy still necessary in addition to a targeted biopsy? BJU Int 115:562–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Chris H, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MG (2015) 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 68:438–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Le JD, Stephenson S, Brugger M et al (2014) MRI-ultrasound fusion biopsy for prediction of final prostate pathology. J Urol 192:1367–1373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mathur S, O'Malley ME, Ghai S, Jhaveri K, Sreeharsha B, Margolis M, Zhong L, Maan H, Toi A (2019) Correlation of 3T multiparametric prostate MRI using prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS) version 2 with biopsy as reference standard. Abdom Radiol (NY) 44(1):252–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Puech P, Rouviere O, Renard-Penna R et al (2013) Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy-prospective multicenter study. Radiology 268:461–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dewey M, Schink T, Dewey CF (2007) Frequency of referral of patients with safety-related contraindications to magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Radiol 63(1):124–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chow GV, Nazarian S (2014) MRI for patients with cardiac implantable electrical devices. Cardiol Clin 32:299–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bastide C, Lechevallier E, Eghazarian C, Ortega JC, Coulange C (2003) Tolerance of pain during transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate: risk factors. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 6:239–241

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kravchick S, Yoffe B, Cytron S (2007) Modified perianal/pericapsular anesthesia for transrectal biopsy of prostate in patients with anal rectal problems. Urology 69(1):139–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gold SA, Hale GR, Bloom JB, Smith CP, Rayn KN, Valera V, Wood BJ, Choyke PL, Turkbey B, Pinto PA (2019) Follow-up of negative MRI-targeted prostate biopsies: when are we missing cancer? World J Urol 37(2):235–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Takahashi S, Yamada Y, Homma Y, Horie S, Hosaka Y, Kitamura T (2002) Power Doppler ultrasonography-directed prostate biopsy in men with elevated serum PSA levels: an evaluation of the clinical utility and limitations. Urology. 60(2):248–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Eisenberg ML, Cowan JE, Carroll PR, Shinohara K (2010) The adjunctive use of power Doppler imaging in the preoperative assessment of prostate cancer. BJU Int 105:1237–1241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Remzi M, Dobrovits M, Reissigl A, Ravery V, Waldert M, Wiunig C, Fong YK, Djavan B, European Society for Oncological Urology (ESOU) (2004) Can power Doppler enhanced transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy improve prostate cancer detection on first and repeat prostate biopsy? Eur Urol 46(4):451–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wright JL, Ellis WJ (2006) Improved prostate cancer detection with anterior apical prostate biopsies. Urol Oncol 24:492–495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. DjavanB ZAR, Remzi M, Ghawidel K, Basharkhah A, Schulman CC et al (2000) Optimal predictors of prostate cancer in repeat prostate biopsy: a prospective study of 1051 men. J Urol 163:1144–1148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kim M, Choi SK, Park M, Shim M, Song C, Jeong IG, Hong JH, Kim CS, Ahn H (2016) Characteristics of anterior located prostate cancer and usefulness of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis. J Urol 196(2):367–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Takashima R, Egawa S, Kuwao S, Baba S (2002) Anterior distribution of Stage T1c nonpalpable tumors in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology 59(5):692–697

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA

    Sergey Kravchick

  2. Department of Radiology, Barzilai Medical Center, Askelon, Israel

    Eugenia Cherniavsky

  3. Epidemiology and Statistics, Ben Gurion University, Beersheba, Israel

    Ronit Peled

  4. Department of Urology, Barzilai Medical Center, Askelon, Israel

    Shmuel Cytron

  5. Department of Urology, Yitzhak Shamir Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Guy Verhovsky

Author notes

  1. Dr Ronit Peled has passed away.

    • Ronit Peled
Authors
  1. Sergey Kravchick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eugenia Cherniavsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ronit Peled
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shmuel Cytron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Guy Verhovsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guy Verhovsky.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

We state that there is no conflict of interest to any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kravchick, S., Cherniavsky, E., Peled, R. et al. Power Doppler Sonography (PDS) and Modified TRUS Systematic Biopsies – Can this Combination Adequately Replace Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mp-MRI) in Candidates for Re Biopsies Who cannot Undergo mp-MRI. Pathol. Oncol. Res. 26, 2357–2361 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12253-020-00824-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12253-020-00824-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation