MR-Guided Prostate Biopsy

  • Derya Yakar
  • Jurgen J. Fütterer
Part of the Medical Radiology book series (MEDRAD)


In men with an elevated prostate-specific antigen and/or abnormal digital rectal examination biopsy is the gold standard for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis. Random systematic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy (TRUSGB) is the most widely applied and available PCa diagnosis method. Detection rates of PCa in random systematic TRUSGB do not exceed 44 and 22% for the first and second biopsy session, respectively (Djavan et al. Eur Urol 42:93–103, 2002; Presti et al. J Urol 169:125–129, 2003). Consequently other biopsy methods have been explored. One of these methods is MR guided biopsy (MRGB) of the prostate which has detection rates after previous negative TRUSGB sessions of between 38 and 59% (Anastasiadis et al. Eur Urol 50:738–748; Beyersdorff et al. Radiology 234:576–658; Engelhard et al. Eur Radiol 16:1237–1243; Franiel et al. Radiology 259:162–172; Hambrock et al. Invest Radiol 43:686–694; Roethke et al. World J Urol (in press)). These rates are higher compared to repeat TRUSGB. MRGB typically consists of two sessions. In the first session a diagnostic multi-parametric MR of the prostate is acquired and subsequently cancer suspicious regions (CSR) are determined. In the second session these CSR will be targeted for MRGB. In conclusion, MRGB has a high PCa detection rate in patients with previous negative TRUSGB sessions. For this reason MRGB will probably become more and more available in daily practice. However, the lack of standard protocols for MR imaging of the prostate is an important issue. For the optimal biopsy technique there is still more research necessary. Robotics may optimize MRGB regarding target accuracies and procedure time.


Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Prostate Biopsy Magnetic Resonance Scanner Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopic Imaging Magnetic Resonance System 
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.


  1. Anastasiadis AG, Lichy MP, Nagele U et al (2006) MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate increases diagnostic performance in men with elevated or increasing PSA levels after previous negative TRUS biopsies. Eur Urol 50:738–748PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashley RA, Inman BA, Routh JC et al (2008) Reassessing the diagnostic yield of saturation biopsy of the prostate. Eur Urol 53:976–981PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beyersdorff D, Winkel A, Hamm B, Lenk S, Loening SA, Taupitz M (2005) MR imaging-guided prostate biopsy with a closed MR unit at 1.5 T: initial results. Radiology 234:576–581PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen M, Dang HD, Wang JY et al (2008) Prostate cancer detection: comparison of T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging, proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging, and the three techniques combined. Acta Radiol 49:602–610PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coakley FV, Kurhanewicz J, Lu Y et al (2002) Prostate cancer tumor volume: measurement with endorectal MR and MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 223:91–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Delongchamps NB, de la Roza G, Jones R, Jumbelic M, Haas GP (2009) Saturation biopsies on autopsied prostates for detecting and characterizing prostate cancer. BJU Int 103:49–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. deSouza NM, Riches SF, Vanas NJ et al (2008) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: a potential non-invasive marker of tumour aggressiveness in localized prostate cancer. Clin Radiol 63:774–782PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Djavan B, Remzi M, Schulman CC, Marberger M, Zlotta AR (2002) Repeat prostate biopsy: who, how and when? A review. Eur Urol 42:93–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Engelhard K, Hollenbach HP, Kiefer B et al (2006) Prostate biopsy in the supine position in a standard 1.5-T scanner under real time MR-imaging control using a MR-compatible endorectal biopsy device. Eur Radiol 16:1237–1243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fischer GS, Iordachita I, Csoma C et al (2008) MRI-compatible pneumatic robot for transperineal prostate needle placement. IEEE/ASME Trans on Mechatron 13:295–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Franiel T, Stephan C, Erbersdobler A, Dietz E et al (2011) Areas suspicious for prostate cancer: MR-guided biopsy in patients with at least one transrectal US-guided biopsy with a negative finding–multiparametric MR imaging for detection and biopsy planning. Radiology 259:162–172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Futterer JJ, Heijmink SWTPJ, Scheenen TWJ et al (2006) Prostate cancer localization with Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and Proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 241:449–458PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fütterer JJ, Misra S, Macura KJ (2010) MRI of the prostate: potential role of robots. Imaging Med 2:583–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hambrock T, Futterer JJ, Huisman HJ et al (2008) Thirty-two-channel coil 3T magnetic resonance-guided biopsies of prostate tumor suspicious regions identified on multimodality 3T magnetic resonance imaging: technique and feasibility. Invest Radiol 43:686–694PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ et al (2011a) Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 259:453–461PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Hoeks C et al (2011b) Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. J Urol 183:520–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hara R, Jo Y, Fujii T et al (2008) Optimal approach for prostate cancer detection as initial biopsy: prospective randomized study comparing transperineal versus transrectal systematic 12-core biopsy. Urology 71:191–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M et al (2011) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 59:61–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ingber MS, Ibrahim I, Turzewski C, Hollander JB, Diokno AC (2010) Does periprostatic block reduce pain during transrectal prostate biopsy? A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study. Int Urol Nephrol 42:23–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mazaheri Y, Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H et al (2008) Prostate cancer: identification with combined diffusion-weighted MR imaging and 3D 1H MR spectroscopic imaging—correlation with pathologic findings. Radiology 246:480–488PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mazaheri Y, Hricak H, Fine SW et al (2009) Prostate tumor volume measurement with combined T2-weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted MR: Correlation with pathologic tumor volume. Radiology 252:449–457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Miller J, Perumalla C, Heap G (2005) Complications of transrectal versus transperineal prostate biopsy. ANZ J Surg 75:48–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Muntener M, Patriciu A, Petrisor D, et al (2008) Transperineal prostate intervention: robot for fully automated MR imaging—system description and proof of principle in a canine model. Radiology;247:543–549Google Scholar
  24. Presti JC Jr, O’Dowd GJ, Miller MC, Mattu R, Veltri RW (2003) Extended peripheral zone biopsy schemes increase cancer detection rates and minimize variance in prostate specific antigen and age related cancer rates: results of a community multi-practice study. J Urol 169:125–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Roethke M, Anastasiadis AG, Lichy M, et al (2011) MRI-guided prostate biopsy detects clinically significant cancer: analysis of a cohort of 100 patients after previous negative TRUS biopsy. World J Urol (in press)Google Scholar
  26. Sciarra A, Panebianco V, Ciccariello M et al (2010) Value of magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging for detecting prostate cancer foci in men with prior negative biopsy. Clin Cancer Res 16:1875–1883PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Singh AK, Kruecker J, Xu S et al (2008) Initial clinical experience with real-time transrectal ultrasonography-magnetic resonance imaging fusion-guided prostate biopsy. BJU Int 101:841–845PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stewart CS, Leibovich BC, Weaver AL, Lieber MM (2001) Prostate cancer diagnosis using a saturation needle biopsy technique after previous negative sextant biopsies. J Urol 166:86–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tanimoto A, Nakashima J, Kohno H, Shinmoto H, Kuribayashi S (2007) Prostate cancer screening: the clinical value of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic MR imaging in combination with T2-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 25:146–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. van den Bosch MR, Moman MR, van Vulpen M et al (2010) MRI-guided robotic system for transperineal prostate interventions: proof of principle. Phys Med Biol 55:N133–N140Google Scholar
  31. Villers A, Puech P, Mouton D, Leroy X, Ballereau C, Lemaitre L (2006) Dynamic contrast enhanced, pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging of localized prostate cancer for predicting tumor volume: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. J Urol 176:2432–2437PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yakar D, Hambrock T, Huisman H et al (2010) Feasibility of 3T Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance-Guided Biopsy in Localizing Local Recurrence of Prostate Cancer After External Beam Radiation Therapy. Invest Radiol 45:121–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yakar D, Schouten MG, Bosboom DG, Barentsz JO, Scheenen TW, Fütterer JJ (2011) Feasibility of a pneumatically actuated MR-compatible Robot for Transrectal prostate Biopsy Guidance. Radiology (in press)Google Scholar
  34. Zangos S, Melzer A, Eichler K (2011) MR-compatible assistance system for biopsy in a high-field-strength system: initial results in patients with suspicious prostate lesions. Radiology 259:903–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyRadboud University Nijmegen Medical CentreNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations