Transperineal prostate biopsy with cognitive magnetic resonance imaging/biplanar ultrasound fusion: description of technique and early results
To describe our technique and early results performing transperineal prostate biopsy using cognitive magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/biplanar ultrasound fusion. Key components of this technique include use of the PrecisionPoint Transperineal Access System (Perineologic, Cumberland, MD) and simultaneous transrectal ultrasound guidance in the axial and sagittal planes.
Patients and methods
In total, 95 patients (38 studied retrospectively and 57 studied prospectively) underwent a transperineal MRI-targeted prostate biopsy using the technique detailed in this manuscript. All biopsies were performed by a single urologist (MAG). Data were collected with respect to cancer detection rates, tolerability, and complications. The subset of patients who were studied prospectively was assessed for complications by telephone interviews performed at 4–6 days and 25–31 days following the prostate biopsy.
Between February 2018 and June 2019, 95 men underwent a transperineal prostate biopsy using MRI/biplanar ultrasound fusion guidance. Patients had a total of 124 PI-RADS 3–5 lesions that were targeted for biopsy. In total, 108 (87.1%) lesions were found to harbor prostate cancer of any grade. Grade group ≥ 2 prostate cancer was found in 81 (65.3%) of targeted lesions. The detection rates for grade group ≥ 1 and grade group ≥ 2 prostate cancer rose with increasing PI-RADS score. In 65 (68.4%) cases, the patient’s highest grade prostate cancer was found within an MRI target. Additionally, 12 of 55 (21.8%) patients who were found to have no or grade group 1 prostate cancer on systematic biopsy were upgraded to grade group ≥ 2 prostate cancer with MRI targeting. Only 1 (1.1%) patient received periprocedural antibiotics and no patient experienced an infectious complication. Self-limited hematuria and hematospermia were commonly reported following the procedure (75.4% and 40.4%, respectively) and only 1 (1.1%) patient developed urinary retention.
We demonstrate the safety and feasibility of performing transperineal prostate biopsy using cognitive MRI/biplanar ultrasound fusion guidance. The described technique affords the safety benefits of the transperineal approach as well as obviates the need for a formal fusion platform. Additionally, this method can conveniently be performed under local anesthesia with acceptable tolerability.
KeywordsProstate biopsy Prostate cancer Transperineal Transrectal PrecisionPoint Fusion biopsy MRI/ultrasound fusion Cognitive fusion MRI targeted
MAG: protocol/project development, data analysis, and manuscript writing/editing. ARM: protocol/project development, data analysis, and manuscript writing/editing. MZ: data collection or management and manuscript writing/editing. RH: data collection or management and manuscript writing/editing. GAJ: protocol/project development and manuscript writing/editing. ZRS: protocol/project development and manuscript writing/editing. MEA: protocol/project development, data analysis and manuscript writing/editing.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interests to disclose.
Patients in the retrospective cohort were studied following Institutional Review Board Approval with a waiver of consent (Protocol # IRB00198333). Patients in the prospective cohort signed informed consent for study participation (Protocol # IRB00138687). No animals were used in the course of this study.
- 12.Ristau BT, Allaway M, Cendo D et al (2018) Free-hand transperineal prostate biopsy provides acceptable cancer detection and minimizes risk of infection: evolving experience with a 10-sector template. Urol Oncol 36(528):e15–e20Google Scholar
- 16.van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israel B et al (2019) Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naive men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol 75:570–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Epstein JI, Amin MB, Reuter VE, Humphrey PA (2017) Contemporary Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: an update with discussion on practical issues to implement the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 41:e1–e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, 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 71:517–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar