Aging Clinical and Experimental Research

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 115–123 | Cite as

Does 1.5 T mpMRI play a definite role in detection of clinically significant prostate cancer? Findings from a prospective study comparing blind 24-core saturation and targeted biopsies with a novel data remodeling model

  • Fabrizio Dal MoroEmail author
  • Giovanni Zecchini
  • Alessandro Morlacco
  • Marina Paola Gardiman
  • Carmelo Salvino Lacognata
  • Alberto Lauro
  • Massimo Rugge
  • Tommaso Prayer Galetti
  • Filiberto Zattoni
Original Article



Multiparametric-magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) can accurately detect high-grade and larger prostate cancers (PC).


To evaluate the ability of 1.5 T magnetic field mpMRI-targeted Prostate Biopsies (PBx) in predicting PC in comparison with blind 24-core saturation PBx (sPBx).


We prospectively collected data from patients undergoing transrectal sPBx and, if needed, targeted PBx of suspected lesions based on the 16-‘region-of-interest’ (ROI) PI-RADS graph. Data remodeling: for each ‘target’ (each suspected lesion at mpMRI), we identified all the 16 ‘ROIs’ into which the lesion extended: these single ‘ROIs’ were identified as ‘macro-targets’. For each ‘ROI’ and ‘macro-target’, we compared the mpMRI result with that of a saturation and targeted biopsy (if performed).


1.5T mpMRI showed a PI-RADS value ≥ 3 in 101 patients (82.1%). We found a PC in 50 (40.6%). Negative-positive predictive values for mpMRI were 82–45%, respectively. Of the 22 patients with normal mpMRI, four had a PC, but none had a clinically significant cancer. After the data remodeling, we demonstrated the presence of PC in 228 ‘ROIs’: (a) only in targeted biopsies in 15 ‘ROIs’/’macro-targets’ (6.6%); (b) only in sPBx in 177 ‘ROIs’ (77.6%); (c) in both targeted and sPBx in 36 ‘ROIs’ (15.8%).


81.8% of patients with normal 1.5T mpMRI were negative at PBx. Performing only targeted PBx may lead to lack of PC diagnosis in about 50% of patients.


In patients with suspected PC and a previous negative PBx, a normal mpMRI may exclude a clinically significant PC, avoiding sPBx.


Multiparametric MRI Prostate cancer Prostate biopsy 



This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Statement on the welfare of animals

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

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

Supplementary material

40520_2018_939_MOESM1_ESM.docx (20 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 20 KB)


  1. 1.
    Bratan F, Niaf E, Melodelima C et al (2013) Influence of imaging and histological factors on prostate cancer detection and localisation on multiparametric MRI: a prospective study. Eur Radiol 23:2019–2029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mendhiratta N, Rosenkrantz AB, Meng X et al (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted prostate biopsy in a consecutive cohort of men with no previous biopsy: reduction of over detection through improved risk stratification. J Urol 194:1601–1606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T et al (2011) Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 261:46–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pokorny MR, de Rooij M, Duncan E 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 66:22–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fütterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P et al (2015) Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 68:1045–1053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cornford P, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al (2017) EAU-ESTRO SIOG Guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: Treatment of Relapsing, Metastatic, and Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol 71:630–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Djavan B, Ravery V, Zlotta A et al (2001) Prospective evaluation of prostate cancer detected on biopsies 1, 2, 3 and 4: when should we stop? J Urol 166:1679–1683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Serefoglu EC, Altinova S, Ugras NS et al (2013) How reliable is 12-core prostate biopsy procedure in the detection of prostate cancer? Can Urol Assoc J 7:E293-298. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Sciarra A et al (2015) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging vs. standard care in men being evaluated for prostate cancer: a randomized study. (17.e1-7.) Urol Oncol 33:7.e1–17.e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tonttila PP, Lantto J, Pääkkö E et al (2016) Prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis in biopsy-naïve men with suspected prostate cancer based on elevated prostate-specific antigen values: results from a randomized prospective blinded controlled trial. Eur Urol 69:419–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mozer P, Roupret M, Le Cossec C et al (2015) First round of targeted biopsies with magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion images compared to conventional ultrasound-guided transrectal biopsies for the diagnosis of localised prostate cancer. BJU Int 115:50–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Delongchamps NB, Peyromaure M, Schull A et al (2013) Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer detection: comparison of random and targeted biopsies. J Urol 189:493–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B et al (2015) Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 313:390–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van Hove A, Savoie PH, Maurin C et al (2014) Comparison of image-guided targeted biopsies versus systematic randomized biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic literature review of well-designed studies. World J Urol 32:847–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo G et al (2013) Prostate cancer detection at repeat biopsy: can pelvic phased-array multiparametric MRI replace saturation biopsy? Anticancer Res 33:1195–1199Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Radtke JP, Kuru TH, Boxler S et al (2015) Comparative analysis of transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy with magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion guidance. J Urol 193:87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Abdollah F, Novara G, Briganti A et al (2011) Trans-rectal versus trans-perineal saturation rebiopsy of the prostate: is there a difference in cancer detection. Rate? Urology 77:921–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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 64:544–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ahmed HU, Hu Y, Carter T et al (2011) Characterizing clinically significant prostate cancer using template prostate mapping biopsy. J Urol 186:458–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Porpiglia F, Manfredi M, Mele F et al (2017) Diagnostic pathway with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging versus standard pathway: results from a randomized prospective study in biopsy-naïve patients with suspected prostate cancer. Eur Urol 72:282–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Scattoni V, Raber M, Capitanio U et al (2011) The optimal rebiopsy prostatic scheme depends on patient clinical characteristics: results of a recursive partitioning analysis based on a 24-core systematic scheme. Eur Urol 60:834–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lane BR, Zippe CD, Abouassaly R et al (2008) Saturation technique does not decrease cancer detection during followup after initial prostate biopsy. J Urol 179:1746–1750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hansen NL, Barrett T, Koo B et al (2017) The influence of prostate-specific antigen density on positive and negative predictive values of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect Gleason score 7–10 prostate cancer in a repeat biopsy setting. BJU 119:724–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mowatt G, Scotland G, Boachie C et al (2013) The diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance spectroscopy and enhanced magnetic resonance imaging techniques in aiding the localisation of prostateabnormalities for biopsy: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 17:vii–xix. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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 68:438–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabrizio Dal Moro
    • 1
    Email author
  • Giovanni Zecchini
    • 1
  • Alessandro Morlacco
    • 1
  • Marina Paola Gardiman
    • 2
  • Carmelo Salvino Lacognata
    • 3
  • Alberto Lauro
    • 3
  • Massimo Rugge
    • 2
  • Tommaso Prayer Galetti
    • 1
  • Filiberto Zattoni
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology-UrologyUniversity of PadovaPaduaItaly
  2. 2.Department of PathologyAzienda Ospedaliera di PadovaPaduaItaly
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyAzienda Ospedaliera di PadovaPaduaItaly

Personalised recommendations