Advertisement

Current Urology Reports

, 17:32 | Cite as

Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Prostate Biopsy: Review of Technology, Techniques, and Outcomes

  • Michael Kongnyuy
  • Arvin K. GeorgeEmail author
  • Ardeshir R. Rastinehad
  • Peter A. Pinto
Prostate Cancer (A Kibel, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Prostate Cancer

Abstract

Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided (12–14 core) systematic biopsy of the prostate is the recommended standard for patients with suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa). Advances in imaging have led to the application of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the detection of PCa with subsequent development of software-based co-registration allowing for the integration of MRI with real-time TRUS during prostate biopsy. A number of fusion-guided methods and platforms are now commercially available with common elements in image and analysis and planning. Implementation of fusion-guided prostate biopsy has now been proven to improve the detection of clinically significant PCa in appropriately selected patients.

Keywords

Prostate cancer Transrectal ultrasound Magnetic resonance imaging Biopsy 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Michael Kongnyuy and Arvin K. George each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Ardeshir R. Rastinehad is a section editor for Current Urology Reports.

Peter A. Pinto reports a patent Method and System for Performing Biopsies issued to No: US 8,447,384 B2, and a patent System and Method for Planning and Performing a Repeat Interventional Procedure pending to File No: US 195-381Úpplication # 2015PF00912.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Serefoglu EC, Altinova S, Ugras NS, Akincioglu E, Asil E, Balbay MD. How reliable is 12-core prostate biopsy procedure in the detection of prostate cancer? Can Urol Assoc J. 2013;7(5–6):E293–e8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.••
    Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George AK, Rothwax J, Shakir N, et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA. 2015;313(4):390–7. This is a landmark study that elucidates the role of targeted fusion biopsy in detection of prostate cancer. The study shows that targeted biopsy detects more clinically significant cancer and fewer clinically insignificant cancer. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    George AK, Pinto PA, Rais-Bahrami S. Multiparametric MRI in the PSA screening era. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:465816.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Turkbey B, Mani H, Shah V, Rastinehad AR, Bernardo M, Pohida T, et al. Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. J Urol. 2011;186(5):1818–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Raskolnikov D, George AK, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, Shakir NA, Okoro C, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and image-guided biopsy to detect seminal vesicle invasion by prostate cancer. J Endourol. 2014;28(11):1283–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Raskolnikov D, George AK, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, Siddiqui MM, Shakir NA, et al. The role of magnetic resonance image guided prostate biopsy in stratifying men for risk of extracapsular extension at radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2015;194(1):105–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.•
    Fascelli M, Rais-Bahrami S, Sankineni S, Brown AM, George AK, Ho R, et al. Combined Biparametric prostate MRI and prostate specific antigen in the detection of prostate cancer: a validation study in a biopsy naïve patient population. Urology 2015. Study which demonstrates the possible use of MRI as a screening tool. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Turkbey B, Merino MJ, Gallardo EC, Shah V, Aras O, Bernardo M, et al. 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. 2014;39(6):1443–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Robertson NL, Emberton M, Moore CM. MRI-targeted prostate biopsy: a review of technique and results. Nat Rev Urol. 2013;10:589–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hoeks CM, Schouten MG, Bomers JG, Hoogendoorn SP, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Hambrock T, et al. Three-Tesla magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy in men with increased prostate-specific antigen and repeated, negative, random, systematic, transrectal ultrasound biopsies: detection of clinically significant prostate cancers. Eur Urol. 2012;62(5):902–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kongnyuy M, Frye TP, George AK, et al. A case of in-bore transperineal MRI-guided prostate biopsy of a patient with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Case Rep Urol. 2015. doi: 10.1155/2015/676930.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kwak JT, Hong CW, Pinto PA, Williams M, Xu S, Kruecker J, et al. Is visual registration equivalent to semiautomated registration in prostate biopsy? Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:394742.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, Stifelman MD, Lepor H, Deng FM, et al. A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial. Eur Urol. 2014;66(2):343–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haffner J, Lemaitre L, Puech P, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. BJU Int. 2011;108, E171.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Raskolnikov D, Rais-Bahrami S, George AK, Turkbey B, Shakir NA, Okoro C, et al. The role of image guided biopsy targeting in patients with atypical small acinar proliferation. J Urol. 2015;193(2):473–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fascelli M, George AK, Frye T, Turkbey B, Choyke PL, Pinto PA. The role of MRI in active surveillance for prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep. 2015;16(6):42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sonn GA, Filson CP, Chang E, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, Macairan M, et al. Initial experience with electronic tracking of specific tumor sites in men undergoing active surveillance of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2014;32(7):952–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Muller BG, Kaushal A, Sankineni S, Lita E, Hoang AN, George AK, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion-assisted biopsy for the diagnosis of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(10):425.e1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sankineni S, George AK, Brown AM, Rais-Bahrami S, Wood BJ, Merino MJ, et al. Posterior subcapsular prostate cancer: identification with mpMRI and MRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40(7):2557–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Manfredi M, Costa Moretti TB, Emberton M, Villers A, Valerio M. MRI/TRUS fusion software-based targeted biopsy: the new standard of care? Minerva Urol Nefrol = Ital J Urol Nephrol. 2015;67(3):233–46.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Valerio M, Donaldson I, Emberton M, Ehdaie B, Hadaschik BA, Marks LS, et al. Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2015;68(1):8–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vourganti S, Rastinehad A, Yerram NK, Nix J, Volkin D, Hoang A, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound fusion biopsy detect prostate cancer in patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies. J Urol. 2012;188(6):2152–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.•
    Salami SS, Ben-Levi E, Yaskiv O, Ryniker L, Turkbey B, Kavoussi LR, et al. In patients with a previous negative prostate biopsy and a suspicious lesion on magnetic resonance imaging, is a 12-core biopsy still necessary in addition to a targeted biopsy? BJU Int. 2015;115(4):562–70. Study which demonstrates the value of fusion-guided prostate biopsy in the evaluation of patients with a prior negative prostate biopsy. Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eggener SE, Badani K, Barocas DA, Barrisford GW, Cheng JS, Chin AI, et al. Gleason 6 prostate cancer: translating biology into population health. J Urol. 2015;194(3):626–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Okoro C, George AK, Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Walton-Diaz A, Shakir NA, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/Transrectal ultrasonography fusion prostate biopsy significantly outperforms systematic 12-core biopsy for prediction of total magnetic resonance imaging tumor volume in active surveillance patients. J Endourol. 2015;29(10):1115–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    George AK, Pinto PA. Editorial comment re: multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging enhances detection of significant tumor in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Urology. 2015;85(2):429.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hu JC, Chang E, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, Macairan M, Lieu P, et al. Targeted prostate biopsy in select men for active surveillance: do the Epstein criteria still apply? J Urol. 2014;192(2):385–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Walton Diaz A, Shakir NA, George AK, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, Rothwax JT, et al. Use of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(5):202.e1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wang S, Burtt K, Turkbey B, Choyke P, Summers RM. Computer aided-diagnosis of prostate cancer on multiparametric MRI: a technical review of current research. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:789561.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Logan JK, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, Gomella A, Amalou H, Choyke PL, et al. Current status of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography fusion software platforms for guidance of prostate biopsies. BJU Int. 2014;114(5):641–52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ewertsen C, Nielsen KR, Nielsen MB. Freehand biopsy guided by electromagnetic needle tracking: a phantom study. Ultraschall Med. 2011;32(6):614–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ewertsen C, Saftoiu A, Gruionu LG, Karstrup S, Nielsen MB. Real-time image fusion involving diagnostic ultrasound. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(3):W249–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hakime A, Deschamps F, De Carvalho EG, Barah A, Auperin A, De Baere T. Electromagnetic-tracked biopsy under ultrasound guidance: preliminary results. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2012;35(4):898–905.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sonn GA, Margolis DJ, Marks LS. Target detection: magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy. Urol Oncol. 2014;32(6):903–11.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hadaschik BA, Kuru TH, Tulea C, Rieker P, Popeneciu IV, Simpfendorfer T, et al. A novel stereotactic prostate biopsy system integrating pre-interventional magnetic resonance imaging and live ultrasound fusion. J Urol. 2011;186(6):2214–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kuru TH, Roethke M, Popeneciu V, Teber D, Pahernik S, Zogal P, et al. Phantom study of a novel stereotactic prostate biopsy system integrating preinterventional magnetic resonance imaging and live ultrasonography fusion. J Endourol. 2012;26(7):807–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rothwax JT, George AK, Wood BJ, Pinto PA. Multiparametric MRI in biopsy guidance for prostate cancer: fusion-guided. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:439171.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Baumann M, Mozer P, Daanen V, Troccaz J. Prostate biopsy tracking with deformation estimation. Med Image Anal. 2012;16(3):562–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Martin S, Troccaz J, Daanenc V. Automated segmentation of the prostate in 3D MR images using a probabilistic atlas and a spatially constrained deformable model. Med Phys. 2010;37(4):1579–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Carignan A, Roussy JF, Lapointe V, Valiquette L, Sabbagh R, Pepin J. Increasing risk of infectious complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies: time to reassess antimicrobial prophylaxis? Eur Urol. 2012;62(3):453–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, Catto J, Emberton M, Nam R, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64(6):876–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Grummet JP, Weerakoon M, Huang S, Lawrentschuk N, Frydenberg M, Moon DA, et al. Sepsis and ‘superbugs’: should we favour the transperineal over the transrectal approach for prostate biopsy? BJU Int. 2014;114(3):384–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Roberts MJ, Williamson DA, Hadway P, Doi SA, Gardiner RA, Paterson DL. Baseline prevalence of antimicrobial resistance and subsequent infection following prostate biopsy using empirical or altered prophylaxis: a bias-adjusted meta-analysis. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2014;43(4):301–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Womble PR, Linsell SM, Gao Y, Ye Z, Montie JE, Gandhi TN, et al. A statewide intervention to reduce hospitalizations after prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2015;194(2):403–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kubo T, Kanemori K, Kusumoto R, Kawai T, Sueyoshi K, Naito T, et al. Simple and effective label-free capillary electrophoretic analysis of sugars by complexation using quinoline boronic acids. Anal Chem. 2015;87(10):5068–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Trobaugh JW, Trobaugh DJ, Richard WD. Three-dimensional imaging with stereotactic ultrasonography. Comput Med Imaging Graph: Off J Comput Med Imaging Soc. 1994;18(5):315–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Singh AK, Kruecker J, Xu S, Glossop N, Guion P, Ullman K, et al. Initial clinical experience with real-time transrectal ultrasonography-magnetic resonance imaging fusion-guided prostate biopsy. BJU Int. 2008;101(7):841–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hong CW, Rais-Bahrami S, Walton-Diaz A, Shakir N, Su D, George AK, et al. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound (MRI-US) fusion-guided prostate biopsies obtained from axial and sagittal approaches. BJU Int. 2015;115(5):772–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Xu S, Kruecker J, Turkbey B, Glossop N, Singh AK, Choyke P, et al. Real-time MRI-TRUS fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsies. Comput Aided Surg: Off J Int Soc Comput Aided Surg. 2008;13(5):255–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rastinehad AR, Turkbey B, Salami SS, Yaskiv O, George AK, Fakhoury M, et al. Improving detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2014;191(6):1749–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zogal P, Sakas G, Rösch W, Baltas D. Physics contributions on: BiopSee®—transperineal stereotactic navigated prostate biopsy. J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2011;3(2):91–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Di Mauro E, Solbiati M, De Beni S, Forzoni L, D’Onofrio S, Solbiati L. Virtual navigator real-time ultrasound fusion imaging with positron emission tomography for liver interventions. Conf Proc: Annua Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc Annua Conf. 2013;2013:1406–9.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Miyagawa T, Ishikawa S, Kimura T, Suetomi T, Tsutsumi M, Irie T, et al. Real-time virtual sonography for navigation during targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging data. Int J Urol: Off J Jpn Urol Assoc. 2010;17(10):855–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Puech P, Rouviere O, Renard-Penna R, Villers A, Devos P, Colombel M, et al. Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy--prospective multicenter study. Radiology. 2013;268(2):461–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Marks L, Young S, Natarajan S. MRI-ultrasound fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsy. Curr Opin Urol. 2013;23(1):43–50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sonn GA, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, MacAiran M, Lieu P, Huang J, et al. Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion device. J Urol. 2013;189(1):86–91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Natarajan S, Marks LS, Margolis DJ, Huang J, Macairan ML, Lieu P, et al. Clinical application of a 3D ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy system. Urol Oncol. 2011;29(3):334–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Paoletti G, Silvani M, Confalone D, Lodigiani L, Manzoli L, D’Onofrio S, et al. Latest Advancements in real-time fusion imaging for prostate. ECR 2015 Educational Exhibit.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kuru TH, Roethke MC, Seidenader J, Simpfendorfer T, Boxler S, Alammar K, et al. Critical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging targeted, transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal fusion biopsy for detection of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2013;190(4):1380–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Shoji S, Hiraiwa S, Endo J, Hashida K, Tomonaga T, Nakano M, et al. Manually controlled targeted prostate biopsy with real-time fusion imaging of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound: an early experience. Int J Urol: Off J Jpn Urol Assoc. 2015;22(2):173–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Tewes S, Hueper K, Hartung D, Imkamp F, Herrmann TR, Weidemann J, et al. Targeted MRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy in men with previous prostate biopsies using a novel registration software and multiparametric MRI PI-RADS scores: first results. World J Urol. 2015;33(11):1707–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ukimura O, Desai MM, Palmer S, Valencerina S, Gross M, Abreu AL, et al. 3-Dimensional elastic registration system of prostate biopsy location by real-time 3-dimensional transrectal ultrasound guidance with magnetic resonance/transrectal ultrasound image fusion. J Urol. 2012;187(3):1080–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Rud E, Baco E, Eggesbo HB. MRI and ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy using soft image fusion. Anticancer Res. 2012;32(8):3383–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Frye TP, Pinto PA, George AK. Optimizing patient population for MP-MRI and fusion biopsy for prostate cancer detection. Curr Urol Rep. 2015;16(7):50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Shakir NA, George AK, Siddiqui MM, Rothwax JT, Rais-Bahrami S, Stamatakis L, et al. Identification of threshold prostate specific antigen levels to optimize the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer by magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided biopsy. J Urol. 2014;192(6):1642–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Rastinehad AR, Waingankar N, Turkbey B, Yaskiv O, Sonstegard AM, Fakhoury M, et al. Comparison of multiparametric MRI scoring systems and the impact on cancer detection in patients undergoing MR US fusion guided prostate biopsies. PLoS One. 2015;10(11), e0143404.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Muller BG, Shih JH, Sankineni S, Marko J, Rais-Bahrami S, George AK, et al. Prostate cancer: interobserver agreement and accuracy with the revised prostate imaging reporting and data system at multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology. 2015;277(3):741–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Mozer P, Roupret M, Le Cossec C, Granger B, Comperat E, de Gorski A, et al. First round of targeted biopsies using magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion compared with conventional transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsies for the diagnosis of localised prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2015;115(1):50–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Sonn GA, Chang E, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, Macairan M, Lieu P, et al. Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Eur Urol. 2014;65(4):809–15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Kongnyuy
    • 1
  • Arvin K. George
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ardeshir R. Rastinehad
    • 2
  • Peter A. Pinto
    • 1
  1. 1.Urologic Oncology BranchNational Institutes of Health, National Cancer InstituteBethesdaUSA
  2. 2.Icahn School of Medicine at Mount SinaiNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations