Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 28, Issue 6, pp 2690–2699 | Cite as

Feasibility study of MR-guided transgluteal targeted in-bore biopsy for suspicious lesions of the prostate at 3 Tesla using a freehand approach

  • Frank FischbachEmail author
  • Lukas Wien
  • Sascha Krueger
  • Bernhard Schnackenburg
  • Daniel Baumunk
  • Björn Friebe
  • Martin Schostak
  • Jens Ricke
  • Katharina Fischbach
Interventional

Abstract

Objective

The aim of our study was (1) to establish an in-bore targeted biopsy of suspicious prostate lesions, avoiding bowel penetration using a transgluteal approach and (2) to assess operator setup, patient comfort and safety aspects in the clinical setting for freehand real-time MR-guidance established for percutaneous procedures in an open MR-scanner.

Material and methods

30 patients with suspect prostate lesions were biopsied in a cylindrical 3T-MRI system using a transgluteal approach in freehand technique. One to three biopsies were sampled using continuous dynamic imaging. Size, location and visibility of the lesion, intervention time, needle artefact size, interventional complications and histopathological diagnosis were recorded.

Results

All biopsies were technically successful. Nineteen patients showed evidence of prostate carcinoma. Cancer detection rate was 50 % in patients with previously negative TRUS-biopsy. The average intervention time was 26 min including a learning curve as the time was 13 min by the end of the study. No antibiotic prophylaxis was performed as none of the patients showed signs of infection.

Conclusions

MR-guided targeted freehand biopsies of prostate lesions using a transgluteal approach are both technically feasible and time efficient in a standard closed-bore 3T-MR scanner as well as safe for the individual patient.

Key Points

Open-bore freehand interventional principles were adapted to closed-bore systems.

Prostate MR-guided freehand biopsies were feasible in a clinical setting.

A transgluteal approach provides a short and simplified work flow.

An inoculation of the prostate with bowel flora is avoided.

The intervention time is comparable to the stereotactic approach.

Keywords

Prostate cancer Prostate biopsy Targeted biopsy Interventional MR Fluoroscopic guidance 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This manuscript is dedicated to our friend and co-author Lukas Wien, who suddenly passed away. Lukas was an extraordinary and kind person and is missed sadly by all of us.

Funding

This study received funding by Philips Medical Healthcare.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Frank Fischbach, MD.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies:

Sascha Kruger and Bernhard Schnackenburg are employees of Philips Medical Healthcare.

Frank Fischbach, Katharina Fischbach and Jens Ricke received research grants from Philips Medical Healthcare.

The other authors declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• prospective

• performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al (2014) European Association of Urology. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update. Eur Urol 65:124–137CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Walz J, Graefen M, Chun FK et al (2006) High incidence of prostate cancer detected by saturation biopsy after previous negative biopsy series. Eur Urol 50:498–505CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Haas GP, Delongchamps NB, Jones RF et al (2007) Needle biopsies on autopsy prostates: sensitivity of cancer detection based on true prevalence. J Natl Cancer Inst 99:1484–1489CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fernandes ET, Sundaram CP, Long R et al (1997) Biopsy Gleason score: how does it correlate with the final pathological diagnosis in prostate cancer? Br J Urol 79:615–617CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chun FK, Steuber T, Erbersdobler A et al (2006) Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Eur Urol 49:820–826CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D et al (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 68:438–450CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mariotti GC, Falsarella PM, Garcia RG et al (2017) Incremental diagnostic value of targeted biopsy using mpMRI-TRUS fusion versus 14-fragments prostatic biopsy: a prospective controlled study. Eur Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4939-0
  8. 8.
    Wegelin O, van Melick HH, Hooft L et al (2017) Comparing Three Different Techniques for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsies: A Systematic Review of In-bore versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound fusion versus Cognitive Registration. Is There a Preferred Technique? Eur Urol 71:517–531CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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 68:713–720CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Loeb S, van den Heuvel S, Zhu X et al (2012) Infectious complications and hospital admissions after prostate biopsy in a European randomized trial. Eur Urol 61:1110–1114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fischbach F, Eggemann H, Bunke J et al (2012) MR-guided freehand biopsy of breast lesions in a 1.0-T open MR imager with a near-real-time interactive platform: preliminary experience. Radiology 265:359–370CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fischbach F, Porsch M, Krenzien F et al (2011) MR imaging guided percutaneous nephrostomy using a 1.0 Tesla open MR scanner. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 34:857–863CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fischbach F, Bunke J, Thormann M et al (2011) MR-guided freehand biopsy of liver lesions with fast continuous imaging using a 1.0-T open MRI scanner: experience in 50 patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 34:188–192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V, Eggener S et al (2013) START Consortium. Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. Eur Urol 64:544–552CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vargas HA, Hötker AM, Goldman DA et al (2016) 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 26:1606–1612CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beyersdorff D, Winkel A, Hamm B et al (2005) MR imaging-guided prostate biopsy with a closed MR unit at 1.5 T: initial results. Radiology 234:576–581CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hambrock T, Fütterer JJ, Huisman HJ et al (2008) Thirty-two-channel coil 3T magnetic resonance-guided biopsies of prostate tumor suspicious regions identified on multimodality 3T magnetic resonance imaging: technique and feasibility. Invest Radiol 43:686–694CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zangos S, Melzer A, Eichler K et al (2011) MR-compatible assistance system for biopsy in a high-field-strength system: initial results in patients with suspicious prostate lesions. Radiology 259:903–910CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gupta S, Nguyen HL, Morello FA Jr et al (2004) Various approaches for CT-guided percutaneous biopsy of deep pelvic lesions: anatomic and technical considerations. Radiographics 24:175–189CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Papanicolaou N, Eisenberg PJ, Silverman SG et al (1996) Prostatic biopsy after proctocolectomy: a transgluteal, CT-guided approach. Am J Roentgenol 166:1332–1334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rodríguez LV, Terris MK (1998) Risks and complications of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate needle biopsy: a prospective study and review of the literature. J Urol 160:2115–2120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Valerio M, Ahmed HU, Emberton M et al (2014) The role of focal therapy in the management of localised prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 66:732–751CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Overduin CG, Jenniskens SF, Sedelaar JP, et al (2017) Percutaneous MR-guided focal cryoablation for recurrent prostate cancer following radiation therapy: retrospective analysis of iceball margins and outcomes. Eur Radiol 27:4828–36Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank Fischbach
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lukas Wien
    • 1
  • Sascha Krueger
    • 2
  • Bernhard Schnackenburg
    • 2
  • Daniel Baumunk
    • 3
  • Björn Friebe
    • 1
  • Martin Schostak
    • 3
  • Jens Ricke
    • 1
  • Katharina Fischbach
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyOtto von Guericke University, Medical SchoolMagdeburgGermany
  2. 2.Philips HealthcarePhilips GmbH Innovative TechnologiesHamburgGermany
  3. 3.Department of UrologyOtto von Guericke University, Medical SchoolMagdeburgGermany

Personalised recommendations