Advertisement

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

  • Morgan PokornyEmail author
  • Boon Kua
  • Rachel Esler
  • John Yaxley
  • Hemamali Samaratunga
  • Nigel Dunglison
  • Troy Gianduzzo
  • Geoff Coughlin
  • Ross Holt
  • Barbara Laing
  • Darren Ault
  • Nicholas Brown
  • Rob Parkinson
  • Les Thompson
Topic Paper
  • 115 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To review our experience with MRI-guided in-bore prostate biopsy (MRGB) and present a review of the literature on MRGB.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

In-bore biopsy MRI-guided biopsy Multiparametric MRI Prostate cancer 

Abbreviations

ADC

Apparent diffusion co-efficient

AS

Active surveillance

CaP

Prostate cancer

CCL

Cancer core length

CSD

Clinically significant disease

DICOM

Digital imaging and communications in medicine

IQR

Inter-quartile range

ISUP

International Society of Urological Pathology

mpMRI

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging

MRGB

In-bore MRI-guided biopsy

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

PI-RADS™

Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System

PZ

Peripheral zone

TRUS

Transrectal ultrasound (guided)

Notes

Authors’ contributions

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.

Funding

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

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

Ethical approval

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Weinreb JC et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging-reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69(1):16–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fütterer JJ et al (2015) Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 68(6):1045–1053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 4.
    Overduin CG, Fütterer JJ, Barentsz JO (2013) MRI-guided biopsy for prostate cancer detection: a systematic review of current clinical results. Curr Urol Rep 14(3):209–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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. 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
  7. 7.
    Christidis D, McGrath S, Leaney B, O’Sullivan R, Lawrentschuk N (2018) Interpreting prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: urologists’ guide including prostate imaging reporting and data system. Urology 111:136–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pokorny MR et al (2014) Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. Eur Urol 66(1):22–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schouten MG et al (2017) Why and where do we miss significant prostate cancer with multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging followed by magnetic resonance-guided and transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in biopsy-naïve men? Eur Urol 71(6):896–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 11.
    Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, Egevad LL, ISUP Grading Committee (2005) “The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma”. Am J Surg Pathol 29(9):1228–1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Epstein JI et al (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(2):244–252PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Venderink W et al (2017) Results of targeted biopsy in men with magnetic resonance imaging lesions classified equivocal, likely or highly likely to be clinically significant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 73(3):353–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 15.
    Addicott B, Foster BR, Johnson C, Fung A, Amling CL, Coakley FV (2017) Direct magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy of the prostate: lessons learned in establishing a regional referral center. Transl Androl Urol 6(3):395–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang Y et al (2018) Optimal biopsy strategy for prostate cancer detection by performing a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Cancer 9(13):2237–2248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Murphy IG, NiMhurchu E, Gibney RG, McMahon CJ (2017) MRI-directed cognitive fusion-guided biopsy of the anterior prostate tumors. Diagn Interv Radiol 23(2):87–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ahmed HU et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet Lond Engl 389(10071):815–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kasivisvanathan V et al (2018) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. New Engl J Med 378(19):1767–1777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jyoti R, Jina NH, Haxhimolla HZ (2017) In-gantry MRI guided prostate biopsy diagnosis of prostatitis and its relationship with PIRADS V. 2 based score. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 61(2):212–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Venderink W, Govers TM, de Rooij M, Fütterer JJ, Sedelaar JPM (2017) Cost-effectiveness comparison of imaging-guided prostate biopsy techniques: systematic transrectal ultrasound, direct in-bore MRI, and image fusion. AJR Am J Roentgenol 208(5):1058–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 23.
    Pahwa S, Schiltz NK, Ponsky LE, Lu Z, Griswold MA, Gulani V (2017) Cost-effectiveness of MR imaging-guided strategies for detection of prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men. Radiology 285(1):157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Alford AV, Brito JM, Yadav KK, Yadav SS, Tewari AK, Renzulli J (2017) The use of biomarkers in prostate cancer screening and treatment. Rev Urol 19(4):221–234PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 26.
    Niu X, Li J, Das SK, Xiong Y, Yang C, Peng T (2017) Developing a nomogram based on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for forecasting high-grade prostate cancer to reduce unnecessary biopsies within the prostate-specific antigen gray zone. BMC Med Imaging 17(1):11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 28.
    Sathianathen NJ, Christidis D, Konety BR, Lawrentschuk NL (2018) Magnetic resonance imaging cognitive fusion biopsy-is near enough good enough? BJU Int 121(3):324–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Porpiglia F et al (2018) Comparing image-guided targeted biopsies to radical prostatectomy specimens for accurate characterization of the index tumor in prostate cancer. Anticancer Res 38(5):3043–3047PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Radtke JP et al (2016) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy for index tumor detection: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimen. Eur Urol 70(5):846–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Borkowetz A et al (2016) Direct comparison of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) results with final histopathology in patients with proven prostate cancer in MRI/ultrasonography-fusion biopsy. BJU Int 118(2):213–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Baco E et al (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging-transectal ultrasound image-fusion biopsies accurately characterize the index tumor: correlation with step-sectioned radical prostatectomy specimens in 135 patients. Eur Urol 67(4):787–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Borghesi M et al (2017) Complications after systematic, random, and image-guided prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 71(3):353–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Friedl A et al (2018) In-bore 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging-guided transrectal targeted prostate biopsy in a repeat biopsy population: diagnostic performance, complications, and learning curve. Urology 114:139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Durmuş T, Reichelt U, Huppertz A, Hamm B, Beyersdorff D, Franiel T (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):411–417PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mouraviev V et al (2013) The feasibility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for targeted biopsy using novel navigation systems to detect early stage prostate cancer: the preliminary experience. J Endourol 27(7):820–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. 38.
    Liddell H, Jyoti R, Haxhimolla HZ (2015) mp-MRI Prostate characterised PIRADS 3 Lesions are associated with a low risk of clinically significant prostate cancer-A retrospective review of 92 biopsied PIRADS 3 lesions. Curr Urol 8(2):96–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Felker ER et al (2016) In-bore magnetic resonance-guided transrectal biopsy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol 41(5):954–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kasel-Seibert M et al (2016) Assessment of PI-RADS v2 for the detection of prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol 85(4):726–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Schimmöller L et al (2016) Targeted MRI-guided prostate biopsy: are two biopsy cores per MRI-lesion required? Eur Radiol 26(11):3858–3864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tewes S et al (2016) Standardized reporting of prostate MRI: comparison of the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) version 1 and version 2. PLoS One 11(9):e0162879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Osses DF, van Asten JJ, Kieft GJ, Tijsterman JD (2017) Prostate cancer detection rates of magnetic resonance imaging-guided prostate biopsy related to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score. World J Urol 35(2):207–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schiavina R et al (2017) ‘In-bore’ MRI-guided prostate biopsy using an endorectal nonmagnetic device: a prospective study of 70 consecutive patients. Clin Genitourin Cancer 15(3):417–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tan N et al (2017) In-Bore 3-T MR-guided transrectal targeted prostate biopsy: prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2-based diagnostic performance for detection of prostate cancer. Radiology 283(1):130–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bastian-Jordan M (2018) Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate and targeted biopsy, Comparison of PIRADS and Gleason grading. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 62(2):183–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Elfatairy KK, Filson CP, Sanda MG, Osunkoya AO, Geller RL, Nour SG (2018) In-bore MRI-guided biopsy: can it optimize the need for periodic biopsies in prostate cancer patients undergoing active surveillance? A pilot test–retest reliability study. Br J Radiol 91(1084):20170603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kaufmann S et al (2018) Prostate cancer detection in patients with prior negative biopsy undergoing cognitive-, robotic- or in-bore MRI target biopsy. World J Urol 36(5):761–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Steurer S et al (2017) High concordance of findings obtained from transgluteal magnetic resonance imaging-and transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy as compared with prostatectomy specimens. BJU Int 120(3):365–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Penzkofer T et al (2015) Transperineal in-bore 3-T MR imaging-guided prostate biopsy: a prospective clinical observational study. Radiology 274(1):170–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Morgan Pokorny
    • 1
    Email author
  • Boon Kua
    • 1
  • Rachel Esler
    • 1
  • John Yaxley
    • 1
    • 4
  • Hemamali Samaratunga
    • 3
  • Nigel Dunglison
    • 1
  • Troy Gianduzzo
    • 1
  • Geoff Coughlin
    • 1
  • Ross Holt
    • 2
  • Barbara Laing
    • 2
  • Darren Ault
    • 2
  • Nicholas Brown
    • 2
  • Rob Parkinson
    • 2
  • Les Thompson
    • 1
  1. 1.The Wesley Hospital Urology DepartmentBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Wesley Medical Imaging, The Wesley HospitalBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.Aquesta UropathologyBrisbaneAustralia
  4. 4.School of MedicineUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations