Ultrasound MRI Fusion Biopsy in Prostate Gland

  • Francesco PorpigliaEmail author
  • Matteo Manfredi


The introduction of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) permitted physicians to direct prostate biopsies to suspicious lesions rather than randomly. This chapter relates to the MRI/ultrasound (US) fusion software-based targeted biopsy, describing its main features, indications, and performance against the other sampling methods. The MRI acquisition and reporting by the radiologist is the initial step of the procedure. Different fusion devices allow to align the pre-biopsy MR images with intraoperative transrectal US in order to enable the urologist to perform targeted biopsy directed toward MR-visible lesions. The main indications of MRI/US fusion software-based targeted biopsy are re-biopsy in men with persistent suspicious of prostate cancer (PCa) after first negative standard biopsy and the follow-up of patients under active surveillance (AS). Some studies have compared MRI/US fusion software-based targeted versus standard biopsy, concluding that targeted biopsy seems to detect equal or more men with clinically significant PCa as compared to standard biopsy. Only few studies directly compared MRI/US fusion software-based targeted biopsy with MRI/US fusion visual targeted biopsy and in-bore MRI biopsy, thus indicating the need for further studies. In conclusion, the MRI/US fusion software-based targeted approach seems to have valuable features to be added in the standard diagnostic pathway of PCa for achieving accurate risk stratification.


Prostate Biopsy Suspicious Lesion Rigid Registration Target Biopsy Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Supplementary material

Video 55.1

Targeted biopsies directed to mp-MRI-suspicious lesions: Transrectal approach (MP4 71778 kb)

Video 55.2

Targeted biopsies directed to mp-MRI-suspicious lesions: Transperineal approach (MP4 93071 kb)


  1. 1.
    Singh H, Canto EI, Shariat SF et al (2004) Improved detection of clinically significant, curable prostate cancer with systematic 12-core biopsy. J Urol 171(3):1089–1092CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Irani J, Blanchet P, Salomon L et al (2013) Is an extended 20-core prostate biopsy protocol more efficient than the standard 12-core? A randomized multicenter trial. J Urol 190(1):77–83CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ukimura O, Coleman JA, de la Taille A et al (2013) Contemporary role of systematic prostate biopsies: indications, techniques, and implications for patient care. Eur Urol 63(2):214–230CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Washington SL, Bonham M, Whitson JM et al (2012) Transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy does not reliably identify dominant cancer location in men with low-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 110(1):50–55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Belas O, Hupertan V, Comperat E et al (2012) Low accuracy of routine ultrasound-guided systematic 12-core biopsies in prostate tumor mapping. Can J Urol 19(4):6366–6372PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI et al (2011) Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol 186(5):1830–1834CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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(4):738. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rud E, Klotz D, Rennesund K et al (2014) Detection of the index tumour and tumour volume in prostate cancer using T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone. BJU Int 114(6b):E32–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tan CH, Paul Hobbs B, Wei W et al (2015) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for the detection of prostate cancer: meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204(4):W439–W448CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Turkbey B, Merino MJ, Gallardo EC et al (2014) Comparison of endorectal coil and nonendorectal coil T2W and diffusion-weighted MRI at 3 Tesla for localizing prostate cancer: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging 39(6):1443–1448CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jung JA, Coakley FV, Vigneron DB et al (2004) Prostate depiction at endorectal MR spectroscopic imaging: investigation of a standardized evaluation system. Radiology 233(3):701–708CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22(4):746–757CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vargas HA, Hötker AM, Goldman DA et al (2015) Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference. Eur Radiol 26(6):1606–12. [Epub ahead of print]CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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(1):22–29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Quentin M, Blondin D, Arsov C et al (2014) Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging guided in-bore prostate biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in biopsy naïve men with elevated prostate specific antigen. J Urol 192(5):1374–1379CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kasivisvanathan V, Dufour R, Moore CM et al (2013) Transperineal magnetic resonance image targeted prostate biopsy versus transperineal template prostate biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. J Urol 189(3):860–866CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Haffner J, Lemaitre L, Puech P 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. BJU Int 108(8 Pt 2):E171–178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Byrne TE (2005) A review of prostate motion with considerations for the treatment of prostate cancer. Med Dosim 30(3):155–161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Logan JK, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B et al (2014) Current status of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography fusion software platforms for guidance of prostate biopsies. BJU Int 114(5):641–652CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sonn GA, Chang E, Natarajan S et al (2014) Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Eur Urol 65(4):809–815CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lawrence EM, Tang SY, Barrett T et al (2014) Prostate cancer: performance characteristics of combined T2W and DW-MRI scoring in the setting of template transperineal re-biopsy using MR-TRUS fusion. Eur Radiol 24(7):1497–1505CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vourganti S, Rastinehad A, Yerram NK et al (2012) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound fusion biopsy detect prostate cancer in patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies. J Urol 188(6):2152–2157CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Abdi H, Zargar H, Goldenberg SL et al (2015) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer in patients with prior negative biopsy results. Urol Oncol 33(4):165.e1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Portalez D, Mozer P, Cornud F et al (2012) Validation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in a cohort of repeat biopsy patients. Eur Urol 62(6):986–996CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Salami SS, Ben-Levi E, Yaskiv O 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? BJU Int 115(4):562–570CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Raskolnikov D, Rais-Bahrami S, George AK et al (2015) The role of image guided biopsy targeting in patients with atypical small acinar proliferation. J Urol 193(2):473–478CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Valerio M, Donaldson I, Emberton M et al (2015) Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy: a systematic review. Eur Urol 68(1):8–19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hu JC, Chang E, Natarajan S et al (2014) Targeted prostate biopsy in select men for active surveillance: do the Epstein criteria still apply? J Urol 192(2):385–390CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sonn GA, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ et al (2013) Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion device. J Urol 189(1):86–91CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Muller BG, Kaushal A, Sankineni S et al (2015) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion-assisted biopsy for the diagnosis of local recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 33(10):425.e1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    van den Bos W, Muller BG, Ahmed H et al (2014) Focal therapy in prostate cancer: international multidisciplinary consensus on trial design. Eur Urol 65(6):1078–1083CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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(2):493–499CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mozer P, Rouprêt M, Le Cossec C 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. BJU Int 115(1):50–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rastinehad AR, Turkbey B, Salami SS et al (2014) Improving detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 191(6):1749–1754CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    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(4):390–397CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Baco E, Rud E, Eri LM et al (2015) A randomized controlled trial to assess and compare the outcomes of two-core prostate biopsy guided by fused magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound images and traditional 12-core systematic biopsy. Eur Urol 69(1):149–56. [Epub ahead of print]CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tonttila PP, Lantto J, Pääkkö E et al (2015) Prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis in biopsy-naive men with suspected prostate cancer based on elevated prostate-specific antigen values: results from a randomized prospective blinded controlled trial. Eur Urol 69(3):419–25. [Epub ahead of print]CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Puech P, Rouvière O, Renard-Penna R et al (2013) Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy--prospective multicenter study. Radiology 268(2):461–469CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lanz C, Cornud F, Beuvon F et al (2016) Gleason score determination with TRUS-MRI fusion guided prostate biopsies: are we gaining in accuracy? J Urol 195(1):88–93. [Epub ahead of print]CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    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(1):87–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC et al (2014) 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 66(2):343–351CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cool DW, Zhang X, Romagnoli C et al (2015) Evaluation of MRI-TRUS fusion versus cognitive registration accuracy for MRI-targeted, TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204(1):83–91CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mouraviev V, Verma S, Kalyanaraman B et al (2013) The feasibility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for targeted biopsy using novel navigation systems to detect early stage prostate cancer: the preliminary experience. J Endourol 27(7):820–825CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Blondin D 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
  45. 45.
    Simmons LA, Ahmed HU, Moore CM et al (2014) The PICTURE study -- prostate imaging (multi-parametric MRI and Prostate HistoScanning™) compared to transperineal ultrasound guided biopsy for significant prostate cancer risk evaluation. Contemp Clin Trials 37(1):69–83CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    El-Shater Bosaily A, Parker C, Brown LC, et al (2015) PROMIS Group. PROMIS - Prostate MR imaging study: A paired validating cohort study evaluating the role of multi-parametric MRI in men with clinical suspicion of prostate cancer. Contemp Clin Trials 42:26–40Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kasivisvanathan V (2015) Accessed 02 Oct 2015
  48. 48.
    Shoji S, Hiraiwa S, Endo J et al (2015) Manually controlled targeted prostate biopsy with real-time fusion imaging of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound: an early experience. Int J Urol 22(2):173–178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    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(3):430–436CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Urology, Department of OncologyUniversity of Turin, “San Luigi” HospitalOrbassano (Turin)Italy

Personalised recommendations