Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prostate cancer detection by targeted prostate biopsy using the 3D Navigo system: a prospective study

  • Kidneys, Ureters, Bladder, Retroperitoneum
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The 3D Navigo™ system is a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion device for prostate targeted biopsies (TB). Our aim was to evaluate the clinically significant prostate cancer (CSC) detection rate of TB using the 3D Navigo™ system.

Methods

Patients who underwent TB with the 3D Navigo™ system in our center between June 2014 and May 2018 were prospectively included, excluding those who have previously received treatment for prostate cancer. A 3-Tesla MRI imaging was performed before biopsies; findings were reported according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PIRADS). CSC was defined by an ISUP score ≥ 2.

Results

304 patients underwent TB. Median age was 66 years (51–84). Median PSA was 7.75 ng/ml (0.6–70.0). Median prostate volume was 45.0 ml (15.9–221.7). PCa and CSC were found in 70.4% (214/304) and 47.7% (145/304) of the patients, respectively. The proportion of patients diagnosed with CSC among those with PCa was 67.8% (145/214). There was a significant risk of having a CSC in case of PIRADS score ≥ 4 and 5 (OR 5.0, 95% CI [2.7–9.2], P < 0.001; OR 3.2, 95% CI [1.8–5.5], P < 0.001). PIRADS score was an independent risk factor of having a CSC (OR 4.19, 95% CI [2.49–7.05], P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between pathological outcomes of TB and RP in paired analysis (P = 0.892). There was a correlation between TB and RP specimens for PCa detection (r = 0.60, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Detecting CSC with MRI-TRUS fusion targeted biopsies using the 3D Navigo™ system is feasible and safe. We found a positive correlation between TB and RP for ISUP scores.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin 2019;69:7–34. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21551.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Richenberg J, Løgager V, Panebianco V, Rouviere O, Villeirs G, Schoots IG. The primacy of multiparametric MRI in men with suspected prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 2019;29:6940–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06166-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. The Lancet 2017;389:815–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, Claudon M, Roy C, Mège-Lechevallier F, et al. Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 2019;20:100–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018;378:1767–77. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B, Hendriks R, Padhani AR, Hoogenboom M, et al. Head-to-head Comparison of Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Prostate Biopsy Versus Multiparametric Prostate Resonance Imaging with Subsequent Magnetic Resonance-guided Biopsy in Biopsy-naïve Men with Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen: A Large Prospective Multicenter Clinical Study. Eur Urol 2019;75:570–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet Lond Engl 2017;389:815–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Professionals S-O. EAU Guidelines: Prostate Cancer. Uroweb n.d. https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/ (accessed November 8, 2020).

  9. Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, Hooft L, Bosch JLHR, Reitsma HB, Barentsz JO, et al. 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 2017;71:517–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.07.041.

  10. Venderink W, Rooij M de, Sedelaar JPM, Huisman HJ, Fütterer JJ. Elastic Versus Rigid Image Registration in Magnetic Resonance Imaging–transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus 2018;4:219–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2016.07.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Noureldin M, Eldred-Evans D, Khoo CC, Winkler M, Sokhi H, Tam H, et al. Review article: MRI-targeted biopsies for prostate cancer diagnosis and management. World J Urol 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03182-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mannaerts CK, Gayet M, Verbeek JF, Engelbrecht MRW, Savci-Heijink CD, Jager GJ, et al. Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment in Biopsy-naïve Patients: The Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator in Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound (TRUS) Fusion Biopsy and Systematic TRUS Biopsy. Eur Urol Oncol 2018;1:109–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2018.02.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gayet M, van der Aa A, Schmitz P, Beerlage HP, Schrier BPh, Mulders PFA, et al. 3D Navigo™ versus TRUS-guided prostate biopsy in prostate cancer detection. World J Urol 2016;34:1255–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1775-9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. van der Aa AAMA, Mannaerts CK, Gayet MCW, van der Linden JC, Schrier BP, Sedelaar JPM, et al. Three-dimensional greyscale transrectal ultrasound-guidance and biopsy core preembedding for detection of prostate cancer: Dutch clinical cohort study. BMC Urol 2019;19:23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-019-0455-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 2016;69:16–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. - PubMed - NCBI n.d. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23537686 (accessed April 18, 2020).

  17. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A. Classification of Surgical Complications. Ann Surg 2004;240:205–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Brown LC, Ahmed HU, Faria R, El-Shater Bosaily A, Gabe R, Kaplan RS, et al. Multiparametric MRI to improve detection of prostate cancer compared with transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy alone: the PROMIS study. Health Technol Assess 2018;22:1–176. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta22390.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Shoji S. Magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion image-guided prostate biopsy: Current status of the cancer detection and the prospects of tailor-made medicine of the prostate cancer. Investig Clin Urol 2019;60:4–13. https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.2019.60.1.4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Venderink W, Govers TM, de Rooij M, Fütterer JJ, Sedelaar JPM. Cost-Effectiveness Comparison of Imaging-Guided Prostate Biopsy Techniques: Systematic Transrectal Ultrasound, Direct In-Bore MRI, and Image Fusion. Am J Roentgenol 2017;208:1058–63. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.17322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gayet M, van der Aa A, Beerlage HP, Schrier BPh, Mulders PFA, Wijkstra H. The value of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography (MRI/US)-fusion biopsy platforms in prostate cancer detection: a systematic review. BJU Int 2016;117:392–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13247.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Oderda M, Faletti R, Battisti G, Dalmasso E, Falcone M, Marra G, et al. Prostate Cancer Detection Rate with Koelis Fusion Biopsies versus Cognitive Biopsies: A Comparative Study. Urol Int 2016;97:230–7. https://doi.org/10.1159/000445524.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, Stifelman MD, Lepor H, Deng F-M, 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;66:343–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.10.048.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ploussard G, Salomon LJ, Xylinas E, Allory Y, Vordos D, Hoznek A, et al. Pathological findings and prostate specific antigen outcomes after radical prostatectomy in men eligible for active surveillance–does the risk of misclassification vary according to biopsy criteria? J Urol 2010;183:539–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Robertson NL, Hu Y, Ahmed HU, Freeman A, Barratt D, Emberton M. Prostate Cancer Risk Inflation as a Consequence of Image-targeted Biopsy of the Prostate: A Computer Simulation Study. Eur Urol 2014;65:628–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.12.057.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Goel S, Shoag JE, Gross MD, Awamlh BAHA, Robinson B, Khani F, et al. Concordance Between Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Pathology in the Era of Targeted Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol Oncol 2019;0. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2019.08.001.

  27. Lee CH, Ku JY, Park WY, Lee, Ha HK. Comparison of the accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) results with the final pathology findings for radical prostatectomy specimens in the detection of prostate cancer. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 2019;15:e20–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajco.13027.

  28. Bensalah K, Albiges L, Bernhard J-C, Bigot P, Bodin T, Boissier R, et al. Recommandations françaises du NK Comité de Cancérologie de l’AFU – Actualisation 2018–2020 : prise en charge du cancer du rein. Prog En Urol 2018;28:S3–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.purol.2018.09.009.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Steba Biotec for providing the NAVIGO™ workstation (UC-CARE Navigo™ Workstation, Model: FPRMC0016A, Yokneam, Israel).

Funding

No funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urology Department, University Hospital of Angers, 4 rue Larrey, 49933, Angers Cedex 9, France

    Alexandre Magnier, Samuel Chelly, Abdel Rahmene Azzouzi & Souhil Lebdai

  2. Radiology Department, University Hospital of Angers, Angers, France

    Cosmina Nedelcu

  3. Pathology Department, University Hospital of Angers, Angers, France

    Marie-Christine Rousselet-Chapeau

Authors
  1. Alexandre Magnier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cosmina Nedelcu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Samuel Chelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marie-Christine Rousselet-Chapeau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Abdel Rahmene Azzouzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Souhil Lebdai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandre Magnier.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No authors have any conflicts of interest related to the subject.

Ethical approval

This study has been registered by the French National Commission for Data Protection – Registration number: 2019-004 (CNIL).

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

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Magnier, A., Nedelcu, C., Chelly, S. et al. Prostate cancer detection by targeted prostate biopsy using the 3D Navigo system: a prospective study. Abdom Radiol 46, 4381–4387 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03078-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03078-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation