Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Results of fusion prostate biopsy comparing with cognitive and systematic biopsy

  • Research
  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Our study aims to determine whether there are differences in the degree of detection of prostate cancer (PCa) and CsPCa between fusion prostate biopsy (FPB), cognitive biopsy (PCB), and randomized, systematic biopsy (SB).

Methods

A retrospective analysis was carried out of 195 patients with suspected PCa at the San Cecilio University Clinical Hospital in Granada who underwent a prostate biopsy between January and December 2021.

Patients were divided into three groups: group 1, patients undergoing FPB transperineally with ultrasound BK 3000 (N = 87); group 2, PCB (N = 59) transperineally; and group 3, transrectal SB (N = 49), the latter two, with an ultrasound BK Specto.

Results

We found differences in favor of image-directed biopsies (FPB and PCB) with a percentage of positive biopsies of 52.8% and 50%, respectively, compared to 41.4% with SB, but without these differences being significant.

Given the controversy in performing prostate biopsies in PI-RADS 3 lesions reported in the literature, a subanalysis was performed excluding the FPB performed for PI-RADS 3 lesions (PI-RADS 4 and 5 are included), finding significant differences when comparing FPB with PCB and SB (group 1, 64% vs group 2, 45.8%; p = 0.05) (group 1, 64% vs group 3, 42.9%; p = 0.035).

Conclusion

With the results obtained in our series, we conclude that the finding of a PI-RADS 3 lesion in mpMRI should not be an absolute criterion to indicate prostate biopsy. On the other hand, for PI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions, FPB is recommended, which in this case turns out to be superior to PCB and SB.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Borofsky S, George AK, Gaur S, Bernardo M, Greer MD, Mertan FV et al (2018) What are we missing? False-negative cancers on multiparametric MRI images of the prostate. Radiology 286(1):186–195

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bratan F, Niaf E, Melodelima C, Chesnais AL, Souchon R, Mège-Lechevallier F et al (2013) Influence of imaging and histological factors on the detection and localization of prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a prospective study. Eur Radiol 23(7):2019–2029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Culp MB (2020) Recent global patterns in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol. 77:38–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Drost F-JH, Osses DF, Nieboer D, Steyerberg EW, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ et al (2019) MRI of the prostate, with or without MRI-directed biopsy, and routine biopsy to detect prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4(4):CD012663

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eklund M, Jäderling F, Discacciati A, Bergman M, Annerstedt M, Aly M et al (2021) MRI- Targeted or standard biopsy in prostate cancer detection. N Engl J Med [internet] 385(10):908–920

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eldred-Evans D, Burak P, Connor MJ, Day E, Evans M, Fiorentino F et al (2021) Population-based screening of prostate cancer with magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasound: The IP1-PROSTAGRAM study: the IP1-PROSTAGRAM study. JAMA Oncol 7(3):395–402

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hamid S, Donaldson IA, Hu Y, Rodell R, Villarini B, Bonmati E et al (2019) The SmartTarget biopsy trial: a prospective, within-person randomised, blinded trial comparing the accuracy of visual-registration and magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound image-fusion targeted biopsies for prostate cancer risk stratification. Eur Urol 75:733–740

  • Johnson DC, Raman SS, Mirak SA, Kwan L, Bajgiran AM, Hsu W et al (2019) Detection of individual foci of prostate cancer by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Euro Urol 75(5):712–720

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

  • Martorana E, Pirola GM, Scialpi M, Micali S, Iseppi A, Bonetti LR et al (2017) Lesion volume predicts prostate cancer risk and aggressiveness: validation of its value alone and matched with prostate imaging reporting and data system score. BJU Int 120:92–103

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oderda M, Marra G, Albisinni S, Altobelli E, Bacchus E, Beatrici V et al (2019) Evaluation of elastic fusion biopsy vs. systematic biopsy for prostate cancer screening: results of a multicenter study in 1119 patients. Urol Proc Esp (Engl Ed) [internet] 43(8):431–438

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Oerther B (2022) Cancer detection rates of PI-RADSv2.1 assessment categories: systematic review and meta-analysis at lesion and patient levels. Prostate Cancer Prostate Dis 25:256–263

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Prostate Cancer (2023) Uroweb - European Association of urology guidelines

  • Rico L, Contreras P, Vitagliano G, Pita HR, Ameri C et al (2020) Prostate-specific antigen density value in negative or equivocal lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Turk J Urol 46:367–372

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Rico L, Blas L, Vitagliano G, Contreras P, Rios Pita H, Ameri C (2021) PI-RADS 3 lesions: does the association of lesion volume with prostate-specific antigen density matter in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer? Urol Oncol 39(431):e9-431.e13

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouviére O (2019) Use of systematic and targeted biopsy of the prostate based on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in patients without prior biopsy (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicenter, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 20:100–109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scialpi M, Martorana E, Aisa MC, Rondoni V, DAndrea A, Bianchi G (2017) Score 3 prostate lesions: a gray zone for PI-RADS v2. Turk J Urol 43(3):237–240

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons LAM, Kanthabalan A, Arya M, Briggs T, Barratt D, Charman SC et al (2018) Accuracy of transperineal targeted prostate biopsies, visual estimation, and image fusion in men requiring repeat biopsy in the PICTURE trial. J Urol 200:1227–1234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tu X, Liu Z, Chang T, Qiu S, Xu H, Bao Y et al (2019) Transperineal MRI-directed biopsy may work better than the transrectal route in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Genitourin Cancer 17(5):E860–E870

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Poppel H, Hogenhout R, Albers P, van den Bergh RCN, Barentsz JO, Roobol MJ (2021) Early detection of prostate cancer in 2020 and beyond: facts and recommendations for the European Union and the European Commission. Eur Urol 79(3):327–329

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël B, Hendriks R, Padhani AR, Hoogenboom M et al (2019) Direct comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with posterior MRI-guided biopsy in men without prior biopsy with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol 75:570–578

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Watts KL, Frechette L, Muller B, Ilinksy D, Kovac E, Sankin A et al (2020) Systematic review and meta-analyses comparing cognitive versus image-guided fusion prostate biopsy for prostate cancer screening. Urol Oncol 38(9):734.e19-734.e25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wegelin O (2017) Comparison of three different techniques for magnetic resonance imaging-directed prostate biopsies: a systematic review of transrectal ultrasound fusion versus cognitive recording. Is there a preferred technique? Eur Urol. 71:517–531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wegelin O (2019) The FUTURE trial: a multicenter randomized controlled trial of magnetic resonance imaging-based targeted biopsy techniques in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol 75:582–590

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors have not disclosed any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urology Department, San Cecilio University Hospital, Granada, Spain

    Marta Guerra-Lacambra, Yaiza Yañez-Castillo, Mar Folgueral-Corral, María Teresa Melgarejo-Segura, María del Carmen Cano-García, Francisco Javier Sánchez-Tamayo, Miguel Angel Arrabal-Polo & Miguel Arrabal-Martin

  2. IBS Granada, Granada, Spain

    María del Carmen Cano-García, Miguel Angel Arrabal-Polo & Miguel Arrabal-Martin

  3. Radiology Department, San Cecilio University Hospital, Granada, Spain

    José Luis Martín-Rodríguez

Authors
  1. Marta Guerra-Lacambra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yaiza Yañez-Castillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mar Folgueral-Corral
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. María Teresa Melgarejo-Segura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. María del Carmen Cano-García
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Francisco Javier Sánchez-Tamayo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. José Luis Martín-Rodríguez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Miguel Angel Arrabal-Polo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Miguel Arrabal-Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MG-L, YY-C and MFG wrote manuscript; MTM-S prepared table; MCC-G and FJS-T perform statiscal analysis and biopsies; JLM-R perform fusion with MIR results; MAA-P and MA-M review manuscript and critical analysis.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miguel Angel Arrabal-Polo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare no funding and no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Guerra-Lacambra, M., Yañez-Castillo, Y., Folgueral-Corral, M. et al. Results of fusion prostate biopsy comparing with cognitive and systematic biopsy. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 149, 15085–15090 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-023-05293-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-023-05293-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation