Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of histological findings obtained combining US/mp-MRI fusion-guided biopsies with systematic US biopsies: mp-MRI role in prostate cancer detection and false negative

  • ONCOLOGY IMAGING
  • Published:
La radiologia medica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aims and objectives

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of mp-MRI correlating US/mp-MRI fusion-guided biopsy with systematic random US-guided biopsy in prostate cancer diagnosis.

Materials and methods

137 suspected prostatic abnormalities were identified on mp-MRI (1.5T) in 96 patients and classified according to PI-RADS score v2. All target lesions underwent US/mp-MRI fusion biopsy and prostatic sampling was completed by US-guided systematic random 12-core biopsies. Histological analysis and Gleason score were established for all the samples, both target lesions defined by mp-MRI, and random biopsies. PI-RADS score was correlated with the histological results, divided in three groups (benign tissue, atypia and carcinoma) and with Gleason groups, divided in four categories considering the new Grading system of the ISUP 2014, using t test. Multivariate analysis was used to correlate PI-RADS and Gleason categories to PSA level and abnormalities axial diameter. When the random core biopsies showed carcinoma (mp-MRI false-negatives), PSA value and lesions Gleason median value were compared with those of carcinomas identified by mp-MRI (true-positives), using t test.

Results

There was statistically significant difference between PI-RADS score in carcinoma, atypia and benign lesions groups (4.41, 3.61 and 3.24, respectively) and between PI-RADS score in Gleason < 7 group and Gleason > 7 group (4.14 and 4.79, respectively). mp-MRI performance was more accurate for lesions > 15 mm and in patients with PSA > 6 ng/ml. In systematic sampling, 130 (11.25%) mp-MRI false-negative were identified. There was no statistic difference in Gleason median value (7.0 vs 7.06) between this group and the mp-MRI true-positives, but a significant lower PSA median value was demonstrated (7.08 vs 7.53 ng/ml).

Conclusion

mp-MRI remains the imaging modality of choice to identify PCa lesions. Integrating US-guided random sampling with US/mp-MRI fusion target lesions sampling, 3.49% of false-negative were identified.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun MJ (2009) Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin 59:225–249. doi:10.3322/caac.20006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. American Cancer Society. Information and resources for cancer: breast, colon, lung, prostate, skin. http://www.cancer.org/

  3. Buhmeida A, Pyrhönen S, Laato M, Collan Y (2006) Prognostic factors in prostate cancer. Diagn Pathol 1:4. doi:10.1186/1746-1596-1-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Stamey TA(1989) Ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the palpably abnormal prostate. J Urol 142:66–70. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2659826. Accessed 19 Sept 2016

  5. Marks L, Young S, Natarajan S (2013) MRI-ultrasound fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsy. Curr Opin Urol 23:43–50. doi:10.1097/MOU.0b013e32835ad3ee

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Patel AR, Jones JS (2009) Optimal biopsy strategies for the diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 19:232–7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19365892. Accessed 19 Sept 2016

  7. Xu S, Kruecker J, Turkbey B, Glossop N, Singh AK, Choyke P, Pinto P, Wood BJ (2008) Real-time MRI-TRUS fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsies. Comput Aided Surg 13:255–264. doi:10.3109/10929080802364645

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Carlson GD, Calvanese CB, Kahane H, Epstein JI (1998) Accuracy of biopsy Gleason scores from a large uropathology laboratory: use of a diagnostic protocol to minimize observer variability. Urology 51:525–9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9586600. Accessed 19 Sept 2016

  9. Tilki D, Schlenker B, John M, Buchner A, Stanislaus P, Gratzke C, Karl A, Tan GY, Ergün S, Tewari AK, Stief CG, Seitz M, Reich O (2011) Clinical and pathologic predictors of Gleason sum upgrading in patients after radical prostatectomy: results from a single institution series. Urol Oncol 29:508–514. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2009.07.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Taira AV, Merrick GS, Galbreath RW, Andreini H, Taubenslag W, Curtis R, Butler WM, Adamovich E, Wallner KE (2010) Performance of transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy in detecting prostate cancer in the initial and repeat biopsy setting. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 13:71–77. doi:10.1038/pcan.2009.42

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Faiella E, Santucci D, Greco F, Pacella G, Beomonte Zobel B, Grasso FR (2017) Ruolo delle sequenza di Risonanza Magnetica Multiparametrica nelle caratterizzazione delle lesioni prostatiche della zona periferica sospette per carcinoma e valore di PI-RADS 3, Giornale Italiano di Radiologia Medica (in press)

  12. Turkbey B, Merino MJ, Gallardo EC, Shah V, Aras O, Bernardo M, Mena E, Daar D, Rastinehad AR, Linehan WM, Wood BJ, Pinto PA, Choyke PL (2014) Comparison of endorectal coil and nonendorectal coil T2W and diffusion-weighted MRI at 3 Tesla for localizing prostate cancer: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging 39:1443–1448. doi:10.1002/jmri.24317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Turkbey B, Albert PS, Kurdziel K, Choyke PL (2009) Imaging localized prostate cancer: current approaches and new developments. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:1471–1480. doi:10.2214/AJR.09.2527

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Thompson J, Lawrentschuk N, Frydenberg M, Thompson L, Stricker P, USANZ (2013) The role of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. BJU Int. doi:10.1111/bju.12381

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Sciarra A, Barentsz J, Bjartell A, Eastham J, Hricak H, Panebianco V, Witjes JA (2011) Advances in magnetic resonance imaging: how they are changing the management of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 59:962–977. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2011.02.034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fuchsjäger M, Shukla-Dave A, Akin O, Barentsz J, Hricak H (2008) Prostate cancer imaging. Acta Radiol 49:107–120. doi:10.1080/02841850701545821

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kim CK, Park BK (2008) Update of prostate magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T. J Comput Assist Tomogr 32:163–172. doi:10.1097/RCT.0b013e3180683b99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pinto PA, Chung PH, Rastinehad AR, Baccala AA, Kruecker J, Benjamin CJ, Xu S, Yan P, Kadoury S, Chua C, Locklin JK, Turkbey B, Shih JH, Gates SP, Buckner C, Bratslavsky G, Linehan WM, Glossop ND, Choyke PL, Wood BJ (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 186:1281–1285. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.05.078

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. De Visschere PJL, Briganti A, Fütterer JJ, Ghadjar P, Isbarn H, Massard C, Ost P, Sooriakumaran P, Surcel CI, Valerio M, van den Bergh RCN, Ploussard G, Giannarini G, Villeirs GM (2016) Role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in early detection of prostate cancer. Insights Imaging 7:205–214. doi:10.1007/s13244-016-0466-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Hoeks CMA, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, Yakar D, Somford DM, Heijmink SWTPJ, Scheenen TWJ, Vos PC, Huisman H, van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Heerschap A, Fütterer JJ (2011) Prostate cancer: multiparametric mr imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 261:46–66. doi:10.1148/radiol.11091822

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Röthke M, Blondin D, Schlemmer H-P, Franiel T (2013) PI-RADS classification: structured reporting for MRI of the prostate. Rofo 185(3):253–261. doi:10.1055/s-0032-1330270

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hricak H, Choyke PL, Eberhardt SC, Leibel SA, Scardino PT (2007) Imaging prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary perspective. Radiology 243:28–53. doi:10.1148/radiol.2431030580

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dianat SS, Carter HB, Schaeffer EM, Hamper UM, Epstein JI, Macura KJ (2015) Association of quantitative magnetic resonance imaging parameters with histological findings from MRI/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy. Can J Urol 22(5):7965–7972 PMID: 26432966

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA, Grading Committee (2016) The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 40:244–252. doi:10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Serefoglu EC, Altinova S, Ugras NS, Akincioglu E, Asil E, Balbay MD (2013) How reliable is 12-core prostate biopsy procedure in the detection of prostate cancer? Can Urol Assoc J 7:E293–E298. doi:10.5489/cuaj.11224

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Pepe P, Aragona F (2007) Saturation prostate needle biopsy and prostate cancer detection at initial and repeat evaluation. Urology 70:1131–1135. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2007.07.068

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Scattoni V, Roscigno M, Raber M, Dehò F, Maga T, Zanoni M, Riva M, Sangalli M, Nava L, Mazzoccoli B, Freschi M, Guazzoni G, Rigatti P, Montorsi F (2008) Initial extended transrectal prostate biopsy—are more prostate cancers detected with 18 cores than with 12 cores? J Urol 179:1327–1331. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.11.052 (discussion 1331)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ravery V, Dominique S, Panhard X, Toublanc M, Boccon-Gibod L, Boccon-Gibod L (2008) The 20-core prostate biopsy protocol—a new gold standard? J Urol 179:504–507. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.09.033

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ting F, Van Leeuwen PJ, Thompson J, Shnier R, Moses D, Delprado W, Stricker PD (2016) Assessment of the performance of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy against a combined targeted plus systematic biopsy approach using 24-core transperineal template saturation mapping prostate biopsy. Prostate Cancer 2016:3794738. doi:10.1155/2016/3794738

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Kongnyuy M, George AK, Rastinehad AR, Pinto PA (2016) Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy: review of technology, techniques, and outcomes. Curr Urol Rep 17:32. doi:10.1007/s11934-016-0589-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Barry MJ, Albertsen PC, Bagshaw MA, Blute ML, Cox R, Middleton RG, Gleason DF, Zincke H, Bergstralh EJ, Jacobsen SJ (2001) Outcomes for men with clinically nonmetastatic prostate carcinoma managed with radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, or expectant management. Cancer 91:2302–2314. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(20010615)91:12<2302:AID-CNCR1262>3.0.CO;2-P

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Gleason DF, Barry MJ, G S, DF G, SH L, JE J, GW C, PC A, PC W, ME C, MA B, GS G, JI E, JC B, ME C, JD K, YMM B, M S, G A, J H, PH G, GP M, WJ C, ED C (1998) Competing risk analysis of men aged 55 to 74 years at diagnosis managed conservatively for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 280:975. doi:10.1001/jama.280.11.975

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. J.I. Epstein, A.W. Partin, J. Sauvageot, P.C (1996) Walsh, Prediction of progression following radical prostatectomy. A multivariate analysis of 721 men with long-term follow-up., Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 20:286–92. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772781 (accessed September 27, 2016)

  34. A.W. Partin, M.W. Kattan, E.N. Subong, P.C. Walsh, K.J. Wojno, J.E. Oesterling, P.T. Scardino, J.D. Pearson, Combination of prostate-specific antigen, clinical stage, and Gleason score to predict pathological stage of localized prostate cancer. A multi-institutional update., JAMA. 277 (1997) 1445–51. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9145716 (accessed September 25, 2016)

  35. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, Margolis D, Schnall MD, Shtern F, Tempany CM, Thoeny HC, Verma S (2015) PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69(2016):16–40. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Vourganti S, Rastinehad A, Yerram NK, Nix J, Volkin D, Hoang A, Turkbey B, Gupta GN, Kruecker J, Linehan WM, Choyke PL, Wood BJ, Pinto PA (2012) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound fusion biopsy detect prostate cancer in patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies. J Urol 188:2152–2157. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.025

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Bjurlin MA, Mendhiratta N, Wysock JS, Taneja SS (2016) Multiparametric MRI and targeted prostate biopsy: improvements in cancer detection, localization, and risk assessment. Cent Eur J Urol 69:9–18. doi:10.5173/ceju.2016.734

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of Rome “Campus Bio-medico”, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 21-00128, Rome, Italy

    Eliodoro Faiella, Domiziana Santucci, Federico Greco, Giulia Frauenfelder, Bruno Beomonte Zobel & Rosario Francesco Grasso

  2. Department of Bio-Engineering, University of Rome “Gemelli”, Largo Agostino Gemelli, 8, 00168, Rome, Italy

    Viola Giacobbe

  3. Department of Urology, University of Rome “Campus Bio-medico”, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 21-00128, Rome, Italy

    Giovanni Muto

Authors
  1. Eliodoro Faiella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Domiziana Santucci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Federico Greco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Giulia Frauenfelder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Viola Giacobbe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Giovanni Muto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Bruno Beomonte Zobel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Rosario Francesco Grasso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eliodoro Faiella.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was not required because this is an observational retrospective study, and only existing information collected from human participants are used and there are not any identifiers linking individuals to the data/samples.

Ethical standards

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Faiella, E., Santucci, D., Greco, F. et al. Analysis of histological findings obtained combining US/mp-MRI fusion-guided biopsies with systematic US biopsies: mp-MRI role in prostate cancer detection and false negative. Radiol med 123, 143–152 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-017-0814-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-017-0814-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation