Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Spatial Tracking of Targeted Prostate Biopsy Locations: Moving Towards Effective Focal Partial Prostate Gland Ablation with Improved Treatment Planning

  • New Imaging Techniques (S Rais-Bahrami and A George, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The ability to selectively characterize, localize, and predict the specific areas of the prostate gland which harbor the worst biologic behavior is requisite for optimal prostate cancer therapy, especially in the emerging field of partial prostate gland ablation (focal therapy). In this manuscript, we highlight contemporary techniques in target tracking for focal therapy planning. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging has emerged as a dominant strategy to localize biopsy sites most likely to contain high-grade lesions. In-bore MRI biopsy and MR/US fusion biopsy using cognitive or software-enhanced co-registration have also become the most common strategy to accomplish this technical challenge. Such advances have led to growing optimism in the field of focal therapy for prostate cancer.

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

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

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(1):7–30. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21387.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lambert EH, Bolte K, Masson P, Katz AE. Focal cryosurgery: encouraging health outcomes for unifocal prostate cancer. Urology. 2007;69(6):1117–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2007.02.047.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Truesdale MD, Cheetham PJ, Hruby GW, Wenske S, Conforto AK, Cooper AB, et al. An evaluation of patient selection criteria on predicting progression-free survival after primary focal unilateral nerve-sparing cryoablation for prostate cancer: recommendations for follow up. Cancer J. 2010;16(5):544–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/PPO.0b013e3181f84639.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. McNeal JE, Villers AA, Redwine EA, Freiha FS, Stamey TA. Capsular penetration in prostate cancer. Significance for natural history and treatment. Am J Surg Pathol. 1990;14(3):240–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Barnes RW. Management of prostatic carcinoma. Med Arts Sci. 1959;13:190–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Resnick MI, Willard JW, Boyce WH. Recent progress in ultrasonography of the bladder and prostate. Trans Am Assoc Genitourin Surg. 1976;68:8–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Resnick MI, Willard JW, Boyce WH. Recent progress in ultrasonography of the bladder and prostate. J Urol. 1977;117(4):444–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. • Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol. 1989;142(1):71–4. discussion 4–5. The initial report of the value of systematic TRUS sampling, highlighting early on the weaknesses of image-guided sampling when US is used in isolation.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Eskew LA, Bare RL, McCullough DL. Systematic 5 region prostate biopsy is superior to sextant method for diagnosing carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol. 1997;157(1):199–202. discussion -3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Levine MA, Ittman M, Melamed J, Lepor H. Two consecutive sets of transrectal ultrasound guided sextant biopsies of the prostate for the detection of prostate cancer. J Urol. 1998;159(2):471–5. discussion 5-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Presti JC Jr, Chang JJ, Bhargava V, Shinohara K. The optimal systematic prostate biopsy scheme should include 8 rather than 6 biopsies: results of a prospective clinical trial. J Urol. 2000;163(1):163–6. discussion 6-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Babaian RJ, Toi A, Kamoi K, Troncoso P, Sweet J, Evans R, et al. A comparative analysis of sextant and an extended 11-core multisite directed biopsy strategy. J Urol. 2000;163(1):152–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Presti JC Jr. Repeat prostate biopsy--when, where, and how. Urol Oncol. 2009;27(3):312–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2008.10.029.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. • Haas GP, Delongchamps NB, Jones RF, Chandan V, Serio AM, Vickers AJ, et al. Needle biopsies on autopsy prostates: sensitivity of cancer detection based on true prevalence. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(19):1484–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djm153. An important autopsy study which highlights the true prevalence of prostate cancer as well as shortfalls in systematic sampling diagnostic accuracy.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Roehl KA, Antenor JA, Catalona WJ. Serial biopsy results in prostate cancer screening study. J Urol. 2002;167(6):2435–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Yanke BV, Gonen M, Scardino PT, Kattan MW. Validation of a nomogram for predicting positive repeat biopsy for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2005;173(2):421–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000150522.82760.00.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Keetch DW, McMurtry JM, Smith DS, Andriole GL, Catalona WJ. Prostate specific antigen density versus prostate specific antigen slope as predictors of prostate cancer in men with initially negative prostatic biopsies. J Urol. 1996;156(2 Pt 1):428–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Chon CH, Lai FC, McNeal JE, Presti JC Jr. Use of extended systematic sampling in patients with a prior negative prostate needle biopsy. J Urol. 2002;167(6):2457–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Zaytoun OM, Moussa AS, Gao T, Fareed K, Jones JS. Office based transrectal saturation biopsy improves prostate cancer detection compared to extended biopsy in the repeat biopsy population. J Urol. 2011;186(3):850–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.04.069.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Stewart CS, Leibovich BC, Weaver AL, Lieber MM. Prostate cancer diagnosis using a saturation needle biopsy technique after previous negative sextant biopsies. J Urol. 2001;166(1):86–91. discussion -2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Pinkstaff DM, Igel TC, Petrou SP, Broderick GA, Wehle MJ, Young PR. Systematic transperineal ultrasound-guided template biopsy of the prostate: three-year experience. Urology. 2005;65(4):735–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2004.10.067.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bott SR, Henderson A, Halls JE, Montgomery BS, Laing R, Langley SE. Extensive transperineal template biopsies of prostate: modified technique and results. Urology. 2006;68(5):1037–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2006.05.033.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. de la Taille A, Antiphon P, Salomon L, Cherfan M, Porcher R, Hoznek A, et al. Prospective evaluation of a 21-sample needle biopsy procedure designed to improve the prostate cancer detection rate. Urology. 2003;61(6):1181–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Djavan B, Ravery V, Zlotta A, Dobronski P, Dobrovits M, Fakhari M, et al. Prospective evaluation of prostate cancer detected on biopsies 1, 2, 3 and 4: when should we stop? J Urol. 2001;166(5):1679–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rosenkrantz AB, Mendrinos S, Babb JS, Taneja SS. Prostate cancer foci detected on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging are histologically distinct from those not detected. J Urol. 2012;187(6):2032–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.01.074.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. • 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.07.013. A landmark study highlighting the power of mpMRI in prostate cancer diagnosis as measured against a true gold standard of matched whole-mount histopathologic specimens matched with corresponding MR imaging via innovative sectioning technique utilizing customized 3D printed tissue molds

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Talab SS, Preston MA, Elmi A, Tabatabaei S. Prostate cancer imaging. what the urologist wants to know Radiol Clin North Am. 2012;50(6):1015–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2012.08.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Cornud F, Khoury G, Bouazza N, Beuvon F, Peyromaure M, Flam T, et al. Tumor target volume for focal therapy of prostate cancer-does multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging allow for a reliable estimation? J Urol. 2014;191(5):1272–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.12.006.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12593.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Hambrock T, Hoeks C, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, Scheenen T, Futterer J, Bouwense S, et al. Prospective assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using 3-T diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies versus a systematic 10-core transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy cohort. Eur Urol. 2012;61(1):177–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.08.042.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Blondin D, Quentin M, Hiester A, Godehardt E, et al. 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. 2015;68(4):713–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lawrentschuk N, Haider MA, Daljeet N, Evans A, Toi A, Finelli A, et al. ‘Prostatic evasive anterior tumours’: the role of magnetic resonance imaging. BJU Int. 2010;105(9):1231–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08938.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Haffner J, Lemaitre L, Puech P, Haber GP, Leroy X, Jones JS, 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(8 Pt 2):E171–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10112.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Park BK, Park JW, Park SY, Kim CK, Lee HM, Jeon SS, et al. Prospective evaluation of 3-T MRI performed before initial transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with high prostate-specific antigen and no previous biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(5):W876–81. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.6829.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 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. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13121501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.10.048.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.025.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Walton Diaz A, Hoang AN, Turkbey B, Hong CW, Truong H, Sterling T, et al. Can magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy improve cancer detection in enlarged prostates? J Urol. 2013;190(6):2020–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.118.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. de Gorski A, Roupret M, Peyronnet B, Le Cossec C, Granger B, Comperat E, et al. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion targeted biopsies to diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer in enlarged compared to smaller prostates. J Urol. 2015;194(3):669–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.03.025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Nix JW, Turkbey B, Hoang A, Volkin D, Yerram N, Chua C, et al. Very distal apical prostate tumours: identification on multiparametric MRI at 3 Tesla. BJU Int. 2012;110(11 Pt B):E694–700. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11503.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Volkin D, Turkbey B, Hoang AN, Rais-Bahrami S, Yerram N, Walton-Diaz A, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and subsequent MRI/ultrasonography fusion-guided biopsy increase the detection of anteriorly located prostate cancers. BJU Int. 2014;114(6b):E43–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12670.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Radtke JP, Boxler S, Kuru TH, Wolf MB, Alt CD, Popeneciu IV, et al. Improved detection of anterior fibromuscular stroma and transition zone prostate cancer using biparametric and multiparametric MRI with MRI-targeted biopsy and MRI-US fusion guidance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2015;18(3):288–96. https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2015.29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Gordetsky JB, Nix JW, Rais-Bahrami S. Perineural invasion in prostate cancer is more frequently detected by multiparametric MRI targeted biopsy compared with standard biopsy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40(4):490–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000546.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.01.072.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 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. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2014.0250.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. National Comprehensive Cancer Network®: NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®). Prostate Cancer Early Detection, Version 2.2016. 2016. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate_detection.pdf. Accessed May 2017.

  47. •• Rosenkrantz AB, Verma S, Choyke P, Eberhardt SC, Eggener SE, Gaitonde K, et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a prior negative biopsy: a Consensus statement by AUA and SAR. J Urol. 2016;196(6):1613–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.079. References 46 and 47 represent landmark works that serve as guidelines incorporating mpMRI and targeted biopsy techniques.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Turkbey B, Xu S, Kruecker J, Locklin J, Pang Y, Bernardo M, et al. Documenting the location of prostate biopsies with image fusion. BJU Int. 2011;107(1):53–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09483.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. •• Turkbey B, Xu S, Kruecker J, Locklin J, Pang Y, Shah V, et al. Documenting the location of systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies: correlation with multi-parametric MRI. Cancer Imaging. 2011;11:31–6. https://doi.org/10.1102/1470-7330.2011.0007. References 48 and 49 represent early reports on the technical feasibility for MR/US fusion biopsy platforms to spatially track biopsy sampling.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. 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. 2008;13(5):255–64. https://doi.org/10.3109/10929080802364645.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. •• 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.04.003. The first report of clinical performace of repeat serial sampling of areas of biopsy-proven cancer using a fusion biopsy platform.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Chelluri R, Kilchevsky A, George AK, Sidana A, Frye TP, Su D, et al. Prostate cancer diagnosis on repeat magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy of benign lesions: recommendations for repeat sampling. J Urol. 2016;196(1):62–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.066.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Turkbey B, Mani H, Aras O, Rastinehad AR, Shah V, Bernardo M, et al. Correlation of magnetic resonance imaging tumor volume with histopathology. J Urol. 2012;188(4):1157–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.06.011.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Baco E, Ukimura O, Rud E, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A, Aron M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-transectal ultrasound image-fusion biopsies accurately characterize the index tumor: correlation with step-sectioned radical prostatectomy specimens in 135 patients. Eur Urol. 2015;67(4):787–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.077.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. •• Matsugasumi T, Baco E, Palmer S, Aron M, Sato Y, Fukuda N, et al. Prostate cancer volume estimation by combining magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy proven cancer core length: correlation with cancer volume. J Urol. 2015;194(4):957–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.04.075. References 53–55 represent the earliest reports of mpMRI in its ability to predict the “index lesion” of presumed highest biologic significance, with mixed performance between institutions.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. •• 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. 2017;389(10071):815–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1. A landmark prospective trial where all men underwent mpMRI and systematic TRUS biopsy and were compared against concurrent transperineal mapping biopsy as a gold standard.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Urology, Rush University Medical Center, 1725 W. Harrison Street, POB III Suite 970, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA

    Steven Sidelsky, Shaan Setia & Srinivas Vourganti

Authors
  1. Steven Sidelsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shaan Setia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Srinivas Vourganti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Srinivas Vourganti.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Steven Sidelsky, Shaan Setia, and Srinivas Vourganti each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

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.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on New Imaging Techniques

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sidelsky, S., Setia, S. & Vourganti, S. Spatial Tracking of Targeted Prostate Biopsy Locations: Moving Towards Effective Focal Partial Prostate Gland Ablation with Improved Treatment Planning. Curr Urol Rep 18, 93 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-017-0741-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-017-0741-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation