La radiologia medica

, Volume 123, Issue 3, pp 227–234 | Cite as

MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy: performing exclusively targeted biopsies for the early detection of prostate cancer

  • Maurizio Del Monte
  • Costantino Leonardo
  • Vincenzo Salvo
  • Marcello Domenico Grompone
  • Martina Pecoraro
  • Arnaldo Stanzione
  • Riccardo Campa
  • Francesco Vullo
  • Alessandro Sciarra
  • Carlo Catalano
  • Valeria Panebianco



The aim of this study was to validate the role of MR/Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Targeted Biopsy as a first diagnostic modality in subjects with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer (PCa).

Materials and methods

108 men (age range 46–78 years) with clinical suspicion for PCa (PSA > 4 ng/mL) underwent multiparametric MRI of the prostate (mpMRI) and, when suspicious lesion were found (according to the PIRADSv2 scoring system), targeted biopsy was performed. All patients without significant alteration patterns at mpMRI have been referred for follow-up at 1 year.


91/108 patients showed on the mpMRI highly suspicious lesions (PIRADS 4 and 5); the remaining 17/108 patients revealed no significant alteration consistent with PCa (PIRADS 3). Among the first group of patients, 58/91 proved to be positive for PCa on the pathology report: 24 patients had a Gleason Score (GS) 6 (3 + 3); 18 patients GS 7 of which 7 (3 + 4) and 11 (4 + 3); 14 patients GS 8 (4 + 4); two patients GS 9 (5 + 4); 33 proved to be negative. Overall cancer detection rate (CDR) was 63%. However, the CDR rises significantly, up to 77%, after the 53 initial consecutive biopsies that were performed (p < 0,05) and thus identified as part of the learning curve. Patients of the second group (17/108) have been followed with serial PSA assessments, clinical reevaluation, and follow-up mpMRI.


Performing exclusively targeted MR/Ultrasound Fusion-Guided biopsies for the diagnosis of PCa in patients with suspicious PSA levels (> 4 ng/mL) increases the detection rate of clinically significant cancer, changing both the therapeutic options and the prognosis.


Prostate cancer Multiparametric magnetic resonance Targeted biopsy 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare 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.

Informed consent

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


  1. 1.
    Jahn JL, Giovannucci EL, Stampfer MJ (2015) The high prevalence of undiagnosed prostate cancer at autopsy: implications for epidemiology and treatment of prostate cancer in the prostate-specific antigen-era: high prostate cancer prevalence: research implications in the PSA-ERA. Int J Cancer 137(12):2795–2802CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Heidenreich A et al (2011) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 59(1):61–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wu J et al (2015) Is magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy better than systematic prostate biopsy? an updated meta- and trial sequential analysis. Oncotarget 6(41):43571–43580PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Collins GN, Lloyd SN, Hehir M, McKelvie GB (1993) Multiple transrectal ultrasound-guided prostatic biopsies–true morbidity and patient acceptance. Br J Urol 71(4):460–463CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Siddiqui MM et al (2015) Comparison of MR/Ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 313(4):390CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moore CM et al (2013) Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. Eur Urol 63(1):125–140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wolf AMD et al (2010) American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of prostate cancer: update 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 60(2):70–98CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Busetto GM et al (2013) Prostate cancer gene 3 and multiparametric magnetic resonance can reduce unnecessary biopsies: decision curve analysis to evaluate predictive models. Urology 82(6):1355–1362CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schimmöller L et al (2014) Predictive power of the ESUR scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis verified with targeted MR-guided in-bore biopsy. Eur J Radiol 83(12):2103–2108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Itatani R et al (2014) Negative predictive value of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: outcome of 5-year follow-up in men with negative findings on initial MRI studies. Eur J Radiol 83(10):1740–1745CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thompson J, Lawrentschuk N, Frydenberg M, Thompson L, Stricker P, USANZ (2013) The role of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer: The role of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. BJU Int 112:6–20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bratan F et al (2013) Influence of imaging and histological factors on prostate cancer detection and localisation on multiparametric MRI: a prospective study. Eur Radiol 23(7):2019–2029CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tan CH, Paul Hobbs B, Wei W, Kundra V (2015) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for the detection of prostate cancer: meta-analysis. Am J Roentgenol 204(4):W439–W448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sciarra A et al (2011) Advances in magnetic resonance imaging: how they are changing the management of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 59(6):962–977CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oderda M et al (2016) Prostate cancer detection rate with koelis fusion biopsies versus cognitive biopsies: a comparative study. Urol Int 97(2):230–237CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Panebianco V et al (2012) Conventional imaging and multiparametric magnetic resonance (MRI, MRS, DWI, MRP) in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Q. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 56(4):331–342PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ukimura O et al (2013) Contemporary role of systematic prostate biopsies: indications, techniques, and implications for patient care. Eur Urol 63(2):214–230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Radtke JP et al (2016) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI–transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy for index tumor detection: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimen. Eur Urol 70(5):846–853CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Haffner J et al (2011) Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection: role of MRI before initial biopsy. BJU Int. 108(8b):E171–E178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pinto PA et al (2011) magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and Correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 186(4):1281–1285CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mozer P et al (2015) 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: mRI/TRUS-fusion targeted vs standard TRUS-guided biopsy. BJU Int. 115(1):50–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chun FK-H et al (2006) Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Eur Urol 49(5):820–826CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weinreb JC et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69(1):16–40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Barentsz JO et al (2016) Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 guidelines for multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and recommendations for use. Eur Urol 69(1):41–49CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jemal A et al (2005) Cancer statistics, 2005. CA Cancer J Clin 55(1):10–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Marien A, De Castro Abreu A, Gill I, Villers A, Ukimura O (2017) Quel est l’intérêt de l’échographie 3D et fusion d’image IRM pour la détection du cancer de la prostate ? Prog. En Urol. 27(10):521–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Panebianco V et al (2013) Prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy: the role of 3-T diffusion imaging in multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 23(6):1745–1752CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Panebianco V et al (2014) Metabolic atrophy and 3-T 1H-magnetic resonance spectroscopy correlation after radiation therapy for prostate cancer: advantages of MRSI after radiation therapy for PCa. BJU Int. 114(6):852–859CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Filson CP et al (2016) Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: the role of systematic and targeted biopsies: CaP detection With MR-US fusion Biopsy. Cancer 122(6):884–892CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Salami SS et al (2015) 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?: performance of mpMRI in predicting prostate cancer on repeat biopsy. BJU Int. 115(4):562–570CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dickinson L et al (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a european consensus meeting. Eur Urol 59(4):477–494CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Maxeiner A et al (2014) Die Echtzeit-MRT/US-Fusionsbiopsie in Patienten mit und ohne Vorbiopsie mit Verdacht auf ein Prostatakarzinom. Aktuelle Urol. 46(1):34–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Porpiglia F et al (2017) Multiparametric-magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy: number and spatial distribution of cores for a better index tumor detection and characterization. J Urol 198(1):58–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MGM (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(3):438–450CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kuru TH et al (2013) Critical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging targeted, transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal fusion biopsy for detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 190(4):1380–1386CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lacetera V et al (2016) MRI/US fusion prostate biopsy: our initial experience. Arch Ital Urol E Androl 88(4):296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tan N et al (2017) In-Bore 3-T MR-guided transrectal targeted prostate biopsy: prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2–based diagnostic performance for detection of prostate cancer. Radiology 283(1):130–139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Manenti G, Aversa T, Catalano C, Simonetti G (2015) MR imaging-guided prostate biopsy: technical features and preliminary results. Radiol Med (Torino) 120(6):571–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Arsov C et al (2015) Prospective randomized trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided In-bore biopsy to MRI-ultrasound fusion and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol 68(4):713–720CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pokorny MR 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(1):22–29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Italian Society of Medical Radiology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maurizio Del Monte
    • 1
  • Costantino Leonardo
    • 2
  • Vincenzo Salvo
    • 1
  • Marcello Domenico Grompone
    • 1
  • Martina Pecoraro
    • 1
  • Arnaldo Stanzione
    • 3
  • Riccardo Campa
    • 1
  • Francesco Vullo
    • 1
  • Alessandro Sciarra
    • 2
  • Carlo Catalano
    • 1
  • Valeria Panebianco
    • 1
  1. 1.Prostate Unit—Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and PathologySapienza University of RomeRomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of UrologySapienza UniversityRomeItaly
  3. 3.Department of Advanced Biomedical SciencesUniversity “Federico II”NaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations