Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Yield of concurrent systemic biopsy during MRI-targeted biopsy according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 in patients with suspected prostate cancer

  • Urogenital
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate the yield of concurrent systemic biopsy (SB) during MRI-targeted biopsy (MRTB) as Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 (v2) interpretations in patients with suspected prostate cancer (PCa).

Methods

A total of 285 patients with suspected PCa underwent prebiopsy 3-T MRI, followed by MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy and concurrent standard SB for lesions with PI-RADS v2 scores 3–5. Detection rates and positive core rates of PCa and clinically significant cancer (CSC) were evaluated.

Results

In concurrent MRTB and SB, PCa and CSC detection rates were 18.9% and 9.4% for PI-RADS score 3, 45.9% and 32.4% for PI-RADS score 4, and 82.1% and 72.6% for PI-RADS score 5, respectively. Overall detection rate of CSCs (40.0%) for concurrent MRTB and SB was significantly higher than that of MRTB (34.4%, p = 0.004) or SB alone (27.7%, p < 0.001): an increase of 5.6% (16 patients) compared with MRTB alone. For patients with PI-RADS score 4 or 5, the CSC detection rate of concurrent MRTB and SB was 47.0%, an increase of 6.1% when compared with MRTB (40.9%) only (p < 0.001). Of the 110 patients with both MRTB- and SB-positive findings, 22 (20.0%) had the highest Gleason score in SB compared with that in MRTB. In 9.5% (27/285) patients including 12 patients with CSCs, only SB was positive, with negative MRTB.

Conclusion

Concurrent SB with MRTB based on PI-RADS v2 can yield a higher CSC detection rate compared with MRTB alone in patients with suspected PCa.

Key Points

• Concurrent SB with MRTB yields an increase of 5.6% CSC detection compared with MRTB alone.

• Of both MRTB- and SB-positive findings, 20.0% patients have upgraded Gleason score in SB.

• In 18.4% patients, only SB was positive, with negative MRTB. Adding MRTB to SB is helpful for adequate risk stratification, reducing diagnostic uncertainty of PCa.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CSC:

Clinically significant cancer

GS:

Gleason score

mpMRI:

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging

MRTB:

MRI-targeted biopsy

PCa:

Prostate cancer

PI-RADS:

Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System

PSA:

Prostate-specific antigen

PZ:

Peripheral zone

SB:

Systemic biopsy

TRUS:

Transrectal ultrasound

TZ:

Transition zone

References

  1. Taira AV, Merrick GS, Galbreath RW et al (2010) Performance of transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy in detecting prostate cancer in the initial and repeat biopsy setting. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 13:71–77

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Rosenkrantz AB, Verma S, Choyke P et al (2016) 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 196:1613–1618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Vickers A, Ehdaie B (2018) MRI-Targeted biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 379:589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Padhani AR, Barentsz J, Villeirs G et al (2019) PI-RADS Steering Committee: The PI-RADS multiparametric MRI and MRI-directed biopsy pathway. Radiology 292:464–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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 313:390–397

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R et al (2012) ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 22:746–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Padhani AR, Weinreb J, Rosenkrantz AB, Villeirs G, Turkbey B, Barentsz J (2019) Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System Steering Committee: PI-RADS v2 Status Update and Future Directions. Eur Urol 75:385–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mannaerts CK, Kajtazovic A, Lodeizen OAP et al (2019) The added value of systematic biopsy in men with suspicion of prostate cancer undergoing multiparametric MRI-targeted biopsy. Urol Oncol 37:298 e291–298 e299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al (2016) PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 69:16–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU et al (2013) Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 64:876–892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Choi MH, Kim CK, Lee YJ, Jung SE (2019) Prebiopsy biparametric mri for clinically significant prostate cancer detection with PI-RADS version 2: a multicenter study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 212:839–846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tan N, Lin WC, Khoshnoodi P 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 283:130–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M et al (2018) MRI-Targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 378:1767–1777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rouviere O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R et al (2019) Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 20:100–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israel B et al (2019) Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naive men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol 75:570–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Moldovan PC, Van den Broeck T, Sylvester R et al (2017) What is the negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in excluding prostate cancer at biopsy? A systematic review and meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol 72:250–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Barkovich EJ, Shankar PR, Westphalen AC (2019) A Systematic Review of the Existing Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 (PI-RADSv2) Literature and Subset Meta-Analysis of PI-RADSv2 Categories Stratified by Gleason Scores. AJR Am J Roentgenol 212:847–854

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Muthigi A, George AK, Sidana A et al (2017) Missing the mark: prostate cancer upgrading by systematic biopsy over magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. J Urol 197:327–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Priester A, Natarajan S, Khoshnoodi P et al (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging underestimation of prostate cancer geometry: use of patient specific molds to correlate images with whole mount pathology. J Urol 197:320–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, Hooft L et al (2017) Comparing three different techniques for magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsies: a systematic review of in-bore versus magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion versus cognitive registration. Is there a preferred technique? Eur Urol 71:517–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Radtke JP, Schwab C, Wolf MB 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 70:846–853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Le JD, Tan N, Shkolyar E et al (2015) Multifocality and prostate cancer detection by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. Eur Urol 67:569–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Scheltema MJ, Tay KJ, Postema AW et al (2017) Utilization of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in clinical practice and focal therapy: report from a Delphi consensus project. World J Urol 35:695–701

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Garcia JJ, Al-Ahmadie HA, Gopalan A et al (2008) Do prostatic transition zone tumors have a distinct morphology? Am J Surg Pathol 32:1709–1714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Asvadi NH, Afshari Mirak S, Mohammadian Bajgiran A et al (2018) 3T multiparametric MR imaging, PIRADSv2-based detection of index prostate cancer lesions in the transition zone and the peripheral zone using whole mount histopathology as reference standard. Abdom Radiol (NY) 43:3117–3124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Muller BG, Shih JH, Sankineni S et al (2015) Prostate cancer: interobserver agreement and accuracy with the revised Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System at multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology 277:741–750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D et al (2016) Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS version 2 lexicon: a multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology 280:793–804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA et al(2019) Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur Urol 76:340–351

Download references

Funding

This study was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (NRF-2017R1A2B4006020).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06351, Republic of Korea

    Chu Hyun Kim, Chan Kyo Kim, Sung Yoon Park & Young Cheol Yoon

  2. Department of Medical Device Management and Research, SAIHST, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Chan Kyo Kim

  3. Department of Digital Health, SAIHST, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Chan Kyo Kim

  4. Department of Radiology, Chungnam National University Hospital, Daejeon, Republic of Korea

    Jung Jae Park

Authors
  1. Chu Hyun Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chan Kyo Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jung Jae Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sung Yoon Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Young Cheol Yoon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chan Kyo Kim.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Chan Kyo Kim.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

Insuk Sohn, PhD, kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript.

Informed consent

This retrospective study was approved by our institutional review board, with a waiver of the requirement for informed consent.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Approval from the institutional animal care committee was not required because this study was on human subjects.

Methodology

• Retrospective

• Diagnostic or prognostic study

• Performed at one institution

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, C.H., Kim, C.K., Park, J.J. et al. Yield of concurrent systemic biopsy during MRI-targeted biopsy according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 in patients with suspected prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 31, 1667–1675 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07167-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07167-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation