MRI-guided in-bore biopsy for prostate cancer: what does the evidence say? A case series of 554 patients and a review of the current literature
- 115 Downloads
To review our experience with MRI-guided in-bore prostate biopsy (MRGB) and present a review of the literature on MRGB.
A retrospective review of patients presenting for MRGB between 2013 and 2018. Diagnostic and biopsy MRI scans were reviewed to collect data on scan dates, procedure times, characteristics of MRI targets (PI-RADS™ score, target size, ADC value and location). A review of the literature on MRGB for the period 2013–2018 was performed.
607 targets in 554 men were biopsied. Overall and significant cancer detection rate were 80% and 55% at a patient level, and 76 and 59% at the target level, respectively. Prostate cancer (CaP) detection in men with prior negative biopsy was 60% while 50% of men on active surveillance were upgraded to clinically significant disease (CSD). Lesion location did not predict for presence of CaP or CSD. PI-RADS™ score, age and PSAD were predictors of CSD at biopsy on multivariate analysis. Literature review identified 23 reports reporting on MRGB cohorts (~ 4000 patients). Overall cancer detection ranged from 23 to 74% and CSD in 63% overall. CaP detection in PI-RADS™ 3 targets was substantially lower in our series and the literature than for PI-RADS™ 4–5 targets.
MRGB in PI-RADS™ 3–5 targets yields high rates of cancer diagnosis. High detection rates are also seen in men with prior negative biopsy and AS cohorts. PI-RADS™ score, age and PSAD can reliably predict CSD detection. The number of published series is small and the role of MRGB in PI-RADS™ 3 targets needs further study.
KeywordsIn-bore biopsy MRI-guided biopsy Multiparametric MRI Prostate cancer
Apparent diffusion co-efficient
Cancer core length
Clinically significant disease
Digital imaging and communications in medicine
International Society of Urological Pathology
Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging
In-bore MRI-guided biopsy
Magnetic resonance imaging
Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System
Transrectal ultrasound (guided)
MP: project development, data collection, data management, data analysis, manuscript writing and editing. BK: data collection, manuscript editing. RE: data collection, manuscript editing. JY: data analysis, manuscript editing. HS: data collection, manuscript editing. ND: manuscript editing. TG: manuscript editing. GC: manuscript editing. RH: data collection, data management, manuscript editing. BL: manuscript editing. DA: manuscript editing. NB: manuscript editing. RP: data analysis, data collection, manuscript editing. LT: data collection, manuscript editing.
No funding was obtained for this study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Institutional ethics committee approval was obtained from Uniting Care Health’s Human Research Ethics Committee for the conduct of this study.
- 3.Schoots IG, Nieboer D, Giganti F, Moore CM, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ (2018) Is MRI-targeted biopsy a useful addition to systematic confirmatory biopsy in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14358 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Bjurlin MA et al. MRI of the Prostate, Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). American Urological Association. https://www.auanet.org/guidelines/mri-of-the-prostate-sop. Accessed 24 Sept 2018
- 6.Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management | Guidance and guidelines | NICE. [Online]. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg175/chapter/1-recommendations. Accessed 02 Jun 2018
- 10.Yaxley AJ, Yaxley JW, Thangasamy IA, Ballard E, Pokorny MR (2017) Comparison between target magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in-gantry and cognitively directed transperineal or transrectal-guided prostate biopsies for Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3–5 MRI lesions. BJU Int 120(Suppl 3):43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Elkjær MC, Andersen MH, Høyer S, Pedersen BG, Borre M (2018) Prostate cancer: in-bore magnetic resonance guided biopsies at active surveillance inclusion improve selection of patients for active treatment. Acta Radiol Stockh Swed 59(5):619–626Google Scholar
- 22.de Rooij M, Crienen S, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM, Grutters JPC (2014) Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR-guided targeted biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in diagnosing prostate cancer: a modelling study from a health care perspective. Eur Urol 66(3):430–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Ting F et al (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. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/3794738 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 27.Wegelin O 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(4):517–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Garmer M, Busch M, Mateiescu S, Fahlbusch DE, Wagener B, Grönemeyer DHW (2015) Accuracy of MRI-targeted in-bore prostate biopsy according to the Gleason score with postprostatectomy histopathologic control—a targeted biopsy-only strategy with limited number of cores. Acad Radiol 22(11):1409–1418CrossRefGoogle Scholar