Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From novice to expert: analyzing the learning curve for MRI-transrectal ultrasonography fusion-guided transrectal prostate biopsy

  • Urology - Original Paper
  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the learning curve of a novice in MRI/TRUS software fusion biopsy and to compare his results with the expert standard at our institution.

Methods

Overall 126 MRI/TRUS fusion-guided transrectal biopsies were performed using an electromagnetic tracking ultrasonography platform. The learning progress of the novice was evaluated comparing his initial 42 procedures (group A) with his following 42 (group B). The institution’s expert standard (group C), which was compared to the novice’s groups, was defined by the expert’s experience of 42 MRI/TRUS fusion biopsies. Primary learning curve parameters were targeted biopsy detection quotient and biopsy time.

Results

Overall detection of prostate cancer was 64% (27/42), 62% (26/42) and 62% (26/42) in groups A, B and C, respectively. The median target biopsy detection quotient significantly increased (p = 0.04) in group B (0.75, interquartile range (IQR) 0.25–1.0) compared to group A. (0.33, IQR 0.2–0.5). Group C revealed a median detection quotient of 0.5 (IQR 0.25–0.76) that did not differ significantly from the novice’s groups (p = 0.2). Median biopsy time was significantly higher in group A (45 min, IQR 33–50 min) compared to groups B (25 min, IQR 23–29 min) and C (24 min, IQR 16–46 min) (p < 0.01).

Conclusions

The present study revealed the individual learning curve of a novice in MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy and demonstrated significant learning progress regarding targeted biopsy detection quotient and biopsy time.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Briers E, Bolla M, Cornford P, De Santis M, Henry A, Joniau S, Lam T, Mason M, Matveev V, van der Poel H, van der Kwast T, Rouviere O, Wiegel T (2016) The European Association of Urology (EAU) Prostate Cancer (PCa) Guidelines. https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/#5. Accessed 25 April 2016

  2. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Hoeks C, Bouwense SA, Huisman H, Yakar D, van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Futterer JJ, Barentsz JO (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. J Urol 183(2):520–527. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.022

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Walton Diaz A, Shakir NA, George AK, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, Rothwax JT, Stamatakis L, Hong CW, Siddiqui MM, Okoro C, Raskolnikov D, Su D, Shih J, Han H, Parnes HL, Merino MJ, Simon RM, Wood BJ, Choyke PL, Pinto PA (2015) Use of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Urol Oncol 33(5):202.e1–202.e7. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.01.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Da Rosa MR, Milot L, Sugar L, Vesprini D, Chung H, Loblaw A, Pond GR, Klotz L, Haider MA (2015) A prospective comparison of MRI-US fused targeted biopsy versus systematic ultrasound-guided biopsy for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in patients on active surveillance. J Magn Reson Imaging 41(1):220–225. doi:10.1002/jmri.24710

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Marliere F, Puech P, Benkirane A, Villers A, Lemaitre L, Leroy X, Betrouni N, Ouzzane A (2014) The role of MRI-targeted and confirmatory biopsies for cancer upstaging at selection in patients considered for active surveillance for clinically low-risk prostate cancer. World J Urol 32(4):951–958. doi:10.1007/s00345-014-1314-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Vargas HA, Akin O, Afaq A, Goldman D, Zheng J, Moskowitz CS, Shukla-Dave A, Eastham J, Scardino P, Hricak H (2012) Magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of clinically low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 188(5):1732–1738. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.07.024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ghai S, Louis AS, Van Vliet M, Lindner U, Haider MA, Hlasny E, Spensieri P, Van Der Kwast TH, McCluskey SA, Kucharczyk W, Trachtenberg J (2015) Real-time MRI-guided focused ultrasound for focal therapy of locally confined low-risk prostate cancer: feasibility and preliminary outcomes. Am J Roentgenol 205(2):W177–W184. doi:10.2214/AJR.14.13098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chin JL, Billia M, Relle J, Roethke MC, Popeneciu IV, Kuru TH, Hatiboglu G, Mueller-Wolf MB, Motsch J, Romagnoli C, Kassam Z, Harle CC, Hafron J, Nandalur KR, Chronik BA, Burtnyk M, Schlemmer HP, Pahernik S (2016) Magnetic resonance imaging-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation of prostate tissue in patients with localized prostate cancer: a prospective phase 1 clinical trial. Eur Urol. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.12.029

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Natarajan S, Raman S, Priester AM, Garritano J, Margolis DJ, Lieu P, Macairan ML, Huang J, Grundfest W, Marks LS (2016) Focal laser ablation of prostate cancer: phase I clinical trial. J Urol 196(1):68–75. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.083

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. van den Bos W, de Bruin DM, van Randen A, Engelbrecht MR, Postema AW, Muller BG, Varkarakis IM, Skolarikos A, Savci-Heijink CD, Jurhill RR, Zondervan PJ, Laguna Pes MP, Wijkstra H, de Reijke TM, de la Rosette JJ (2016) MRI and contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging for evaluation of focal irreversible electroporation treatment: results from a phase I–II study in patients undergoing IRE followed by radical prostatectomy. Eur Radiol 26(7):2252–2260. doi:10.1007/s00330-015-4042-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gaziev G, Wadhwa K, Barrett T, Koo BC, Gallagher FA, Serrao E, Frey J, Seidenader J, Carmona L, Warren A, Gnanapragasam V, Doble A, Kastner C (2016) Defining the learning curve for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate using MRI-transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) fusion-guided transperineal prostate biopsies as a validation tool. BJU Int 117(1):80–86. doi:10.1111/bju.12892

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cash H, Gunzel K, Maxeiner A, Stephan C, Fischer T, Durmus T, Miller K, Asbach P, Haas M, Kempkensteffen C (2016) Prostate cancer detection on transrectal ultrasonography-guided random biopsy despite negative real-time magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion-guided targeted biopsy: reasons for targeted biopsy failure. BJU Int 118(1):35–43. doi:10.1111/bju.13327

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V, Eggener S, Emberton M, Futterer JJ, Gill IS, Grubb Iii RL, Hadaschik B, Klotz L, Margolis DJ, Marks LS, Melamed J, Oto A, Palmer SL, Pinto P, Puech P, Punwani S, Rosenkrantz AB, Schoots IG, Simon R, Taneja SS, Turkbey B, Ukimura O, van der Meulen J, Villers A, Watanabe Y (2013) Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. Eur Urol 64(4):544–552. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ackermann H (1991) BIAS: a program package for biometrical analysis of samples. Comput Stat Data Anal 11(2):223–224. doi:10.1016/0167-9473(91)90073-b

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cook JA, Ramsay CR, Fayers P (2004) Statistical evaluation of learning curve effects in surgical trials. Clin Trials 1(5):421–427

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Latchamsetty KC, Borden LS Jr, Porter CR, Lacrampe M, Vaughan M, Lin E, Conti N, Wright JL, Corman JM (2007) Experience improves staging accuracy of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: what is the learning curve? Can J Urol 14(1):3429–3434

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Turkbey B, Merino MJ, Gallardo EC, Shah V, Aras O, Bernardo M, Mena E, Daar D, Rastinehad AR, Linehan WM, Wood BJ, Pinto PA, Choyke PL (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):1443–1448. doi:10.1002/jmri.24317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Costa DN, Yuan Q, Xi Y, Rofsky NM, Lenkinski RE, Lotan Y, Roehrborn CG, Francis F, Travalini D, Pedrosa I (2016) Comparison of prostate cancer detection at 3-T MRI with and without an endorectal coil: a prospective, paired-patient study. Urol Oncol 34(6):255.e7–255.e13. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.02.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Muthigi A, Sidana A, George AK, Kongnyuy M, Shakir N, Kadakia M, Maruf M, Frye TP, Mertan F, Su D, Merino MJ, Choyke PL, Turkbey B, Wood BJ, Pinto PA (2016) Midline lesions of the prostate: role of MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy and implications in Gleason risk stratification. Int Urol Nephrol 48(9):1445–1452. doi:10.1007/s11255-016-1336-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zhang Q, Wang W, Zhang B, Shi J, Fu Y, Li D, Guo S, Zhang S, Huang H, Jiang X, Zhou W, Guo H (2017) Comparison of free-hand transperineal mpMRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy with transperineal 12-core systematic biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a single-center prospective study in China. Int Urol Nephrol 49(3):439–448. doi:10.1007/s11255-016-1484-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kuru TH, Roethke MC, Seidenader J, Simpfendorfer T, Boxler S, Alammar K, Rieker P, Popeneciu VI, Roth W, Pahernik S, Schlemmer HP, Hohenfellner M, Hadaschik BA (2013) Critical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging targeted, transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal fusion biopsy for detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 190(4):1380–1386. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.04.043

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Barzell WE, Melamed MR, Cathcart P, Moore CM, Ahmed HU, Emberton M (2012) Identifying candidates for active surveillance: an evaluation of the repeat biopsy strategy for men with favorable risk prostate cancer. J Urol 188(3):762–767. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.04.107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Puech P, Rouviere O, Renard-Penna R, Villers A, Devos P, Colombel M, Bitker MO, Leroy X, Mege-Lechevallier F, Comperat E, Ouzzane A, Lemaitre L (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):461–469. doi:10.1148/radiol.13121501

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George AK, Rothwax J, Shakir N, Okoro C, Raskolnikov D, Parnes HL, Linehan WM, Merino MJ, Simon RM, Choyke PL, Wood BJ, Pinto PA (2015) Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 313(4):390–397. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.17942

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Delongchamps NB, Portalez D, Bruguiere E, Rouviere O, Malavaud B, Mozer P, Fiard G, Cornud F (2016) Are MRI-TRUS-guided targeted biopsies non-inferior to TRUS-guided systematic biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer in patients with a single suspicious focus on multiparametric prostate MRI? Results of a multicentric controlled trial. J Urol. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2016.04.003

    Google Scholar 

  26. Walton Diaz A, Hoang AN, Turkbey B, Hong CW, Truong H, Sterling T, Rais-Bahrami S, Siddiqui MM, Stamatakis L, Vourganti S, Nix J, Logan J, Harris C, Weintraub M, Chua C, Merino MJ, Choyke P, Wood BJ, Pinto PA (2013) Can magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy improve cancer detection in enlarged prostates? J Urol 190(6):2020–2025. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.05.118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong H, Stamatakis L, Vourganti S, Nix J, Hoang AN, Walton-Diaz A, Shuch B, Weintraub M, Kruecker J, Amalou H, Turkbey B, Merino MJ, Choyke PL, Wood BJ, Pinto PA (2013) Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol 64(5):713–719. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.059

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Radtke JP, Kuru TH, Boxler S, Alt CD, Popeneciu IV, Huettenbrink C, Klein T, Steinemann S, Bergstraesser C, Roethke M, Roth W, Schlemmer HP, Hohenfellner M, Hadaschik BA (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):87–94. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2014.07.098

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kuru TH, Roethke MC, Rieker P, Roth W, Fenchel M, Hohenfellner M, Schlemmer HP, Hadaschik BA (2013) Histology core-specific evaluation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) standardised scoring system of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate. BJU Int 112(8):1080–1087. doi:10.1111/bju.12259

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Billing A, Buchner A, Stief C, Roosen A (2016) Poor standard mp-MRI and routine biopsy fail to precisely predict intraprostatic tumor localization. World J Urol. doi:10.1007/s00345-016-1776-8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Medical Center Mainz, Langenbeckstr. 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany

    R. Mager, M. P. Brandt, H. Borgmann, A. Haferkamp & M. Kurosch

  2. Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria

    K. M. Gust

Authors
  1. R. Mager
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. P. Brandt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H. Borgmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K. M. Gust
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Haferkamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. Kurosch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Mager.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 11 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mager, R., Brandt, M.P., Borgmann, H. et al. From novice to expert: analyzing the learning curve for MRI-transrectal ultrasonography fusion-guided transrectal prostate biopsy. Int Urol Nephrol 49, 1537–1544 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-017-1642-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-017-1642-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation