Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Commentary regarding a recent collaborative consensus statement addressing prostate MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy in patients with a prior negative prostate biopsy

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

References

  1. Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Verma S, et al. (2016) Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 guidelines for multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and recommendations for use. Eur Urol 69(1):41–49. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.038

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22(4):746–757. doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Vargas HA, Hotker AM, Goldman DA, et al. (2015) Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference. Eur Radiol . doi:10.1007/s00330-015-4015-6

    Google Scholar 

  4. Joint Consensus Panel of the American Urological Association and Society of Abdominal Radiology. Prostate MRI and MRI-Targeted Biopsy in Patients with Prior Negative Biopsy-Collaborative Initiative of the American Urological Association and the Society of Abdominal Radiology’s Prostate Cancer Disease-Focused Panel. Electronically published April 2016. Available at: https://www.auanet.org/common/pdf/education/clinical-guidance/Consensus-Statement-Prostate-MRI-and-MRI-Targeted-Biopsy.pdf. Published in April 2016. Accessed 8 Aug 2016

  5. Mendhiratta N, Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, et al. (2015) Pre-biopsy MRI and MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy in men with previous negative biopsies: impact on repeat biopsy strategies. Urology . doi:10.1016/j.urology.2015.07.038

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Blondin D, et al. (2015) Prospective randomized trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided in-bore biopsy to MRI-ultrasound fusion and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol 68(4):713–720. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Abdi H, Pourmalek F, Zargar H, et al. (2015) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging enhances detection of significant tumor in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Urology 85(2):423–428. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2014.09.060

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Salami SS, Ben-Levi E, Yaskiv O, et al. (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(4):562–570. doi:10.1111/bju.12938

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Hoeks C, et al. (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. J Urol 183(2):520–527. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.022

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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(4):809–815. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kaufmann S, Kruck S, Kramer U, et al. (2015) Direct comparison of targeted MRI-guided biopsy with systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in patients with previous negative prostate biopsies. Urol Int 94(3):319–325. doi:10.1159/000365397

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kaufmann S, Bedke J, Gatidis S, et al. (2015) Prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3) is of additional predictive value in patients with PI-RADS grade III (intermediate) lesions in the MR-guided re-biopsy setting for prostate cancer. World J Urol . doi:10.1007/s00345-015-1655-8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Durmus T, Reichelt U, Huppertz A, et al. (2013) MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate: correlation between the cancer detection rate and the number of previous negative TRUS biopsies. Diagn Interv Radiol 19(5):411–417. doi:10.5152/dir.2013.13055

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hoeks CM, Schouten MG, Bomers JG, et al. (2012) 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 62(5):902–909. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.047

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Roethke M, Anastasiadis AG, Lichy M, et al. (2012) MRI-guided prostate biopsy detects clinically significant cancer: analysis of a cohort of 100 patients after previous negative TRUS biopsy. World J Urol 30(2):213–218. doi:10.1007/s00345-011-0675-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Vourganti S, Rastinehad A, Yerram NK, et al. (2012) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound fusion biopsy detect prostate cancer in patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies. J Urol 188(6):2152–2157. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.025

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Busetto GM, De Berardinis E, Sciarra A, et al. (2013) Prostate cancer gene 3 and multiparametric magnetic resonance can reduce unnecessary biopsies: decision curve analysis to evaluate predictive models. Urology 82(6):1355–1360. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2013.06.078

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, et al. (2014) 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(2):343–351. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.10.048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lee SH, Chung MS, Kim JH, et al. (2012) Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in men with previously negative prostate biopsy results. J Endourol 26(7):787–791. doi:10.1089/end.2011.0393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, Mendhiratta N, et al. (2015) Relationship between prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), biopsy indication, and MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy outcomes. Eur Urol. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.005

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Sonn GA, Margolis DJ, Marks LS (2014) Target detection: magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy. Urol Oncol 32(6):903–911. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2013.08.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schouten MG, Hoeks CM, Bomers JG, et al. (2015) Location of prostate cancers determined by multiparametric and mri-guided biopsy in patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen level and at least one negative transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205(1):57–63. doi:10.2214/ajr.14.12960

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cash H, Maxeiner A, Stephan C, et al. (2015) 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 . doi:10.1007/s00345-015-1671-8

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kuru TH, Roethke MC, Seidenader J, et al. (2013) Critical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging targeted, transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal fusion biopsy for detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 190(4):1380–1386. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.04.043

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Blondin D, et al. (2015) Prospective randomized trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided in-bore biopsy to MRI-ultrasound fusion and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol . doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.008

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tewes S, Hueper K, Hartung D, et al. (2015) Targeted MRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy in men with previous prostate biopsies using a novel registration software and multiparametric MRI PI-RADS scores: first results. World J Urol . doi:10.1007/s00345-015-1525-4

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Porpiglia F, Russo F, Manfredi M, et al. (2014) The roles of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, PCA3 and prostate health index-which is the best predictor of prostate cancer after a negative biopsy? J Urol 192(1):60–66. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2014.01.030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, 234 Goodman Street, PO Box 670761, Cincinnati, OH, 45267-0761, USA

    Sadhna Verma

  2. Department of Radiology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, USA

    Andrew B. Rosenkrantz

  3. Molecular Imaging Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA

    Peter Choyke

  4. Department of Radiology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, USA

    Steven C. Eberhardt

  5. Department of Urology, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, USA

    Scott E. Eggener

  6. Department of Urology, College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, USA

    Krishnanath Gaitonde

  7. Department of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, USA

    Masoom A. Haider

  8. Department of Radiology, Weill Cornell Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, USA

    Daniel J. Margolis

  9. Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, USA

    Leonard S. Marks

  10. Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute & NIH Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, USA

    Peter Pinto

  11. Department of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, USA

    Geoffrey A. Sonn

  12. Department of Urologic Oncology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, USA

    Samir S. Taneja

Authors
  1. Sadhna Verma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew B. Rosenkrantz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Choyke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Steven C. Eberhardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Scott E. Eggener
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Krishnanath Gaitonde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Masoom A. Haider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Daniel J. Margolis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Leonard S. Marks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Peter Pinto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Geoffrey A. Sonn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Samir S. Taneja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sadhna Verma.

Ethics declarations

Funding

None.

Conflicts of interest

Rosenkrantz: Royalties (Thieme Medical Publishers). Eggener: Consultant and lecturer (MDX Health). Taneja: Consultant (Hitachi-Aloka and Healthtronics); payments for lectures and travel expenses (Hitachi-Aloka); royalties (Elsevier). Remaining others: No relevant disclosures.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Verma, S., Rosenkrantz, A.B., Choyke, P. et al. Commentary regarding a recent collaborative consensus statement addressing prostate MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy in patients with a prior negative prostate biopsy. Abdom Radiol 42, 346–349 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0920-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0920-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation