Robotic-assisted transrectal MRI-guided biopsy. Technical feasibility and role in the current diagnosis of prostate cancer: an initial single-center experience



To evaluate the potential clinical and technical utility to manage in practice the use of a robotic MRI in-bore-targeted prostate biopsies in the current work-up of prostate cancer diagnosis.


Thirty patients with a single cancer suspicious lesion interpreted on MRI using PI-RADSv2.1 category ≥ 3 underwent in-bore robotic transrectal MRI remote-controlled-guided biopsy. It was analyzed the technical success, clinical details, biopsy findings in correlation with the MRI examination, complications and cancer detection rate (CDR).


The overall CDR for any cancer was 73% (22/30). It was 86% (19/22) for significant tumors (Gleason score of more than 6 or maximum cancer core length greater than 3 mm for Gleason 6) and 77% (17/22) for tumors with Gleason > 6. CDR for biopsy-naïve patients was 89% (16/18) and 50% (6/12) for patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies. The CDR for PI-RADS > 3 was 92% (22/24). All the lesions (n = 30) were reachable with the robotic MRI device. A self-limited rectal hemorrhagic complication was reported.


This initial data show that a robotic MRI-guided biopsy could be useful, efficient and feasible procedure in the new paradigm to diagnose significant prostate cancer in selected patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6


  1. 1.

    O’Connor LP, Lebastchi AH, Horuz R, et al (2020) Role of multiparametric prostate MRI in the management of prostate cancer. World J Urol.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Professionals S-O EAU Guidelines: Prostate Cancer. In: Uroweb. Accessed 22 Mar 2020

  3. 3.

    NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer. 2019. Accessed 2 Jul 2020

  4. 4.

    Padhani AR, Barentsz J, Villeirs G, et al (2019) PI-RADS Steering Committee: The PI-RADS Multiparametric MRI and MRI-directed Biopsy Pathway. Radiology 182946.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al (2018) MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med 378:1767–1777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389:815–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Schoots IG, Padhani AR, Rouvière O, et al (2020) Analysis of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-directed Biopsy Strategies for Changing the Paradigm of Prostate Cancer Diagnosis. Eur Urol Oncol 3:32–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Wegelin O, Exterkate L, van der Leest M, et al (2019) The FUTURE Trial: A Multicenter Randomised Controlled Trial on Target Biopsy Techniques Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in Patients with Prior Negative Biopsies. Eur Urol 75:582–590.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Beyersdorff D, Winkel A, Hamm B, et al (2005) MR Imaging–guided Prostate Biopsy with a Closed MR Unit at 1.5 T: Initial Results. Radiology 234:576–581.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Bomers JGR, Bosboom DGH, Tigelaar GH, et al (2017) Feasibility of a 2nd generation MR-compatible manipulator for transrectal prostate biopsy guidance. Eur Radiol 27:1776–1782.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Barral M, Lefevre A, Camparo P, et al (2019) In-Bore Transrectal MRI-Guided Biopsy With Robotic Assistance in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: An Analysis of 57 Patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Linder N, Schaudinn A, Petersen T-O, et al (2019) In-bore biopsies of the prostate assisted by a remote-controlled manipulator at 1.5 T. MAGMA 32:599–605.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    PI-RADS. Accessed 13 Jun 2019

  14. 14.

    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Ahmed HU, Hu Y, Carter T, et al (2011) Characterizing clinically significant prostate cancer using template prostate mapping biopsy. J Urol 186:458–464.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Meermeier NP, Foster BR, Liu J-J, et al (2019) Impact of Direct MRI-Guided Biopsy of the Prostate on Clinical Management. AJR Am J Roentgenol 213:371–376.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Felker ER, Lee-Felker SA, Feller J, et al (2016) In-bore magnetic resonance-guided transrectal biopsy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol (NY) 41:954–962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Schouten MG, Bomers JGR, Yakar D, et al (2012) Evaluation of a robotic technique for transrectal MRI-guided prostate biopsies. Eur Radiol 22:476–483.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Schouten MG, van der Leest M, Pokorny M, 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 71:896–903.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    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 189:493–499.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Ahdoot M, Wilbur AR, Reese SE, et al (2020) MRI-Targeted, Systematic, and Combined Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med 382:917–928.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Kasivisvanathan V, Stabile A, Neves JB, et al (2019) Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy Versus Systematic Biopsy in the Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol 76:284–303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Gorin MA, Walsh PC (2018) Magnetic Resonance Imaging Prior to First Prostate Biopsy-Are we there yet? Eur Urol 74:409–410.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Ploussard G, Borgmann H, Briganti A, et al (2019) Positive pre-biopsy MRI: are systematic biopsies still useful in addition to targeted biopsies? World J Urol 37:243–251.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Garcia Bennett J, Vilanova JC, Gumà Padró J, et al (2017) Evaluation of MR imaging-targeted biopsies of the prostate in biopsy-naïve patients. A single centre study. Diagn Interv Imaging 98:677–684.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Delongchamps NB, Lefèvre A, Bouazza N, et al (2015) Detection of significant prostate cancer with magnetic resonance targeted biopsies–should transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging fusion guided biopsies alone be a standard of care? J Urol 193:1198–1204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    de Rooij M, Crienen S, Witjes JA, et al (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 66:430–436.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Pahwa S, Schiltz NK, Ponsky LE, et al (2017) Cost-effectiveness of MR Imaging-guided Strategies for Detection of Prostate Cancer in Biopsy-Naive Men. Radiology 285:157–166.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Author information




All authors whose names appear on the submission made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the creation of new software used in the work. Approved the version to be published; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joan C. Vilanova.

Ethics declarations


The scientific guarantor of this publication is Joan C Vilanova.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: Soteria Medical: Martijn Hoogenboom. The authors: Joan C. Vilanova, Anna Pérez de Tudela, Josep Puig, Joaquim Barceló, Montse Planas, Sònia Sala, Santiago Thio-Henestrosa of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vilanova, J.C., Pérez de Tudela, A., Puig, J. et al. Robotic-assisted transrectal MRI-guided biopsy. Technical feasibility and role in the current diagnosis of prostate cancer: an initial single-center experience. Abdom Radiol 45, 4150–4159 (2020).

Download citation


  • Prostate cancer
  • Magnetic resonance imaging
  • Biopsy
  • Robotics