MRI-Ultrasound Fusion Prostate Biopsy

  • Wai-Kit Ma
  • Peter Ka-Fung ChiuEmail author


MRI prostate has emerged as the most accurate imaging available for detection of significant prostate cancer. Standardized reporting using the The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) system for MRI prostate is important for clinical management and for professional communication. Besides diagnosis of prostate cancer, MRI prostate also enabled targeted prostate biopsy, and MRI-Ultrasound fusion biopsy has been increasingly utilized for targeting of suspicious MRI lesions during real-time ultrasound scanning of prostate. The elements of a successful MRI-Ultrasound fusion biopsy program include high quality MRI imaging and reporting, and the proper usage of fusion biopsy machines in achieving an accurate targeted biopsy.


MRI Prostate biopsy Fusion biopsy 


  1. Abdi H, Zargar H, Goldenberg SL, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer in patients with prior negative biopsy results. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(4):165.e1–7.Google Scholar
  2. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. American Urological Association (AUA) and Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) Joint Consensus Statement. Prostate MRI and MRI-targeted biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsy. Collaborative initiative of the American Urological Association and the Society of Abdominal Radiology’s Prostate Cancer Disease-Focused Panel. 2016.
  4. Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Blondin D, 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Baco E, Rud E, Eri LM, et al. 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. 2016;69:149–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bansal S, Gupta NP, Yadav R, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy: a prospective, single centre study. Indian J Urol. 2017;33(2):134–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(4):746–57.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Bjurlin MA, Meng X, Le Nobin J, et al. Optimization of prostate biopsy: the role of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in detection, localization and risk assessment. J Urol. 2014;192(3):648–58.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Borkowetz A, Platzek I, Toma M, et al. Comparison of systematic transrectal biopsy to transperineal magnetic resonance imaging/ ultrasound-fusion biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2015;116:873–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Calio B, Sidana A, Sugano D, et al. Changes in prostate cancer detection rate of MRI-TRUS fusion vs systematic biopsy over time: evidence of a learning curve. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017;20(4):436–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen R, Ren S, Chinese Prostate Cancer Consortium, et al. Prostate cancer in Asia: a collaborative report. Asian J Urol. 2014;1(1):15–29.Google Scholar
  12. Delongchamps NB, Peyromaure M, Schull A, et al. Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer detection: comparison of random and targeted biopsies. J Urol. 2013;189:493–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol. 2011;59(4):477–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Futterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P, et al. Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2015;68:1045–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. de Gorski A, Roupret M, Peyronnet B, et al. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion targeted biopsies to diagnose clinical significant prostate cancer in enlarged compared to smaller prostates. J Urol. 2015;194:669–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Halpern JA, Shoag JE, Artis AS, et al. National trends in prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy volumes following the US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines against prostate-specific antigen screening. JAMA Surg. 2017;152(2):192–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoeks CM, Schouten MG, Bomers JG, et al. Three-Tesla magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy in men with increased prostate-specific antigen and repeated, negative, random, systematic, transrectal ultrasound biopsies: detection of clinically significant prostate cancers. Eur Urol. 2012;62(5):902–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hong CW, Rais-Bahrami S, Walton-Diaz A, et al. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound (MRI-US) fusion guided prostate biopsies obtained from axial and sagittal approaches. BJU Int. 2015;115(5):772–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Ikonen S, Kivisaari L, Vehmas T, et al. Optimal timing of post-biopsy MR imaging of the prostate. Acta Radiol. 2001;42(1):70–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Katahira K, Takahara T, Kwee TC, et al. Ultra-high-b-value diffusion-weighted MR imaging for the detection of prostate cancer: evaluation in 201 cases with histopathological correlation. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(1):188–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kongnyuy M, George AK, Rastinehad AR, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy: review of technology, techniques, and outcomes. Curr Urol Rep. 2016;17(4):32.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee DH, Nam JK, Park SW, et al. Visually estimated MRI targeted prostate biopsy could improve the detection of significant prostate cancer in patients with a PSA level <10 ng/mL. Yonsei Med J. 2016;57(3):565–71.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Lian H, Zhuang J, Wang W, et al. Assessment of free-hand transperineal targeted prostate biopsy using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion in Chinese men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. BMC Urol. 2017;17(1):52.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Ma WK, Ho BS, Lai AS, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy with semi-robotic navigation in the Chinese population: initial results. Asian J Androl. 2017;20(1):93–4. Scholar
  25. Mager R, Brandt MP, Borgmann H, et al. From novice to expert: analyzing the learning curve for MRI-transrectal ultrasonography fusion-guided transrectal prostate biopsy. Int Urol Nephrol. 2017;49(9):1537–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Mendhiratta N, Rosenkrantz AB, Meng X, et al. MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy in a consecutive cohort of men with no previous biopsy: reduction of over-detection through improved risk stratification. J Urol. 2015;194:1601–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, Mendhiratta N, et al. Relationship between prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), biopsy indication, and MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy outcomes. Eur Urol. 2016;69:512–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Miyagawa T, Ishikawa S, Kimura T, et al. Real-time Virtual Sonography for navigation during targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging data. Int J Urol. 2010;17(10):855–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Moore CM, Robertson NL, Arsanious N, et al. Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2013;63(1):125–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Nash PA, Bruce JE, Indudhara R, et al. Transrectal ultrasound guided prostatic nerve blockade eases systematic needle biopsy of the prostate. J Urol. 1996;155(2):607–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Porpiglia F, Manfredi M, Mele F, et al. Diagnostic pathway with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging versus standard pathway: results from a randomized prospective study in biopsy-naïve patients with suspected prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2017;72(2):282–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Portalez D, Mozer P, Cornud F, et al. 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. 2012;62:986–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Puech P, Rouvière O, Renard-Penna R, 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;268:461–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Purysko AS, Bittencourt LK, Bullen JA, et al. Accuracy and interobserver agreement for prostate imaging reporting and data system, version 2, for the characterization of lesions identified on multiparametric MRI of the prostate. Am J Roentgenol. 2017;209(2):339–49.Google Scholar
  35. Radtke JP, Kuru TH, Boxler S, et al. Comparative analysis of transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy with magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion guidance. J Urol. 2015;193:87–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Salami SS, Ben-Levi E, Yaskiv O, et al. 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. 2015a;115:562–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Salami SS, Ben-Levi E, Yaskiv O, et al. 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. 2015b;115(4):56270.Google Scholar
  38. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, et al. Comparison of MR/ ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA. 2015;313:390–7.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Soloway MS, Obek C. Periprostatic local anesthesia before ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2000;163(1):172–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Sonn GA, Chang E, Natarajan S, et al. Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Eur Urol. 2014;65(4):809–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Sonn GA, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, et al. Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion device. J Urol. 2013;189:86–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Tay KJ, Gupta RT, Rastinehad AR, et al. Navigating MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy: optimizing the process and avoiding technical pitfalls. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2016;16(3):303–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Venderink W, de Rooij M, Sedelaar JPM, et al. 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(2):219–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Vourganti S, Rastinehad A, Yerram NK, 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.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Vourganti S, Starkweather N, Wojtowycz A. MR/US fusion technology: what makes it tick? Curr Urol Rep. 2017;18(3):20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Washino S, Okochi T, Saito K, et al. Combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density predicts biopsy outcome in prostate biopsy naïve patients. BJU Int. 2017;119(2):225–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69(1):16–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Welch HG, Fisher ES, Gottlieb DJ, et al. Detection of prostate cancer via biopsy in the Medicare-SEER population during the PSA era. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(18):1395–400.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Yaxley AJ, Yaxley JW, Thangasamy I, et al. Comparison between target MRI in-gantry and cognitive target transperineal or transrectal guided prostate biopsies for PIRADS 3-5 MRI lesions. BJU Int. 2017;120(Suppl 3):43–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhang Q, Wang W, Yang R, et al. Free-hand transperineal targeted prostate biopsy with real-time fusion imaging of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound: single-center experience in China. Int Urol Nephrol. 2015;47(5):727–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhao C, Gao G, Fang D, et al. The efficiency of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) using PI-RADS Version 2 in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Clin Imaging. 2016;40:885–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryQueen Mary Hospital, The University of Hong KongHong KongChina
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryPrince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong KongHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations