A critical comparison of techniques for MRI-targeted biopsy of the prostate

MRI-targeted biopsy is a promising technique that offers an improved detection of clinically significant prostate cancer over standard non-targeted biopsy. It is established that prostate MRI is of use in both the primary and repeat biopsy setting for the detection of significant prostate cancer. There are three approaches to targeting biopsies to areas of interest seen on prostate MRI. They each rely on the acquisition and reporting of a diagnostic quality multi-parametric MRI scan used to identify areas of interest, and the subsequent use of those diagnostic quality images in combination with real-time images of the prostate during the biopsy procedure. The three techniques are: visual registration of the MRI images with a real-time ultrasound image; software-assisted fusion of the MRI images and the real-time ultrasound images, and in-bore biopsy, which requires registration of a diagnostic quality MRI scan with a real time interventional MRI image. In this paper we compare the three techniques and evaluate those studies where there is a direct comparison of more than one MRI-targeting technique. PubMed was searched from inception to November 2016 using the search terms (cognitive registration OR visual registration OR fusion biopsy OR in-bore biopsy OR targeted biopsy) AND (prostate cancer OR prostate adenocarcinoma OR prostate carcinoma OR prostatic carcinoma OR prostatic adenocarcinoma) AND (MRI OR NMR OR magnetic resonance imaging OR mpMRI OR multiparametric MRI). The initial search included 731 abstracts. Eleven full text papers directly compared two or more techniques of MRI-targeting, and were selected for inclusion. The detection of clinically significant prostate cancer varied from 0% to 93.3% for visual registration, 23.2% to 100% for software-assisted registration and 29% to 80% for in-bore biopsy. Detection rates for clinically significant cancer are dependent on the prevalence of cancer within the population biopsied, which in turn is determined by the selection criteria [biopsy naïve, previous negative biopsy, prostate specific antigen (PSA) selection criteria, presence of a lesion on MRI]. Cancer detection rates varied more between study populations than between biopsy approaches. Currently there is no consensus on which type of MRI-targeted biopsy performs better in a given setting. Although there have been studies supporting each of the three techniques, substantial differences in methodology and reporting the findings make it difficult to reliably compare their outcomes.

[1]  L. Hooft,et al.  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? , 2017, European urology.

[2]  A. Sidana,et al.  Missing the Mark: Prostate Cancer Upgrading by Systematic Biopsy over Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy , 2017, The Journal of urology.

[3]  P. Pepe,et al.  Transperineal Versus Transrectal MRI/TRUS Fusion Targeted Biopsy: Detection Rate of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer , 2017, Clinical genitourinary cancer.

[4]  D. Margolis,et al.  Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy in Patients with a Prior Negative Biopsy: A Consensus Statement by AUA and SAR. , 2016, The Journal of urology.

[5]  A. Fenster,et al.  Comparison of prostate MRI-3D transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy for first-time and repeat biopsy patients with previous atypical small acinar proliferation. , 2016, Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada.

[6]  Jonathan Coleman,et al.  Comparative Effectiveness of Targeted Prostate Biopsy Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging Ultrasound Fusion Software and Visual Targeting: a Prospective Study. , 2016, The Journal of urology.

[7]  A. Veltri,et al.  Multiparametric-Magnetic Resonance/Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Prostate Biopsy Improves Agreement Between Biopsy and Radical Prostatectomy Gleason Score. , 2016, Anticancer research.

[8]  A. Sidana,et al.  Prostate Cancer Diagnosis on Repeat Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy of Benign Lesions: Recommendations for Repeat Sampling. , 2016, The Journal of urology.

[9]  A. Sidana,et al.  Midline lesions of the prostate: role of MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy and implications in Gleason risk stratification , 2016, International Urology and Nephrology.

[10]  A. Zitella,et al.  Prostate Cancer Detection Rate with Koelis Fusion Biopsies versus Cognitive Biopsies: A Comparative Study , 2016, Urologia Internationalis.

[11]  W. Catalona,et al.  Diagnostic Value of Guided Biopsies: Fusion and Cognitive-registration Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Conventional Ultrasound Biopsy of the Prostate. , 2016, Urology.

[12]  D. Margolis,et al.  In-bore magnetic resonance-guided transrectal biopsy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer , 2016, Abdominal Radiology.

[13]  P. Albers,et al.  Targeted MRI-guided prostate biopsy: are two biopsy cores per MRI-lesion required? , 2016, European Radiology.

[14]  P. Pinto,et al.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Prostate Biopsy: Review of Technology, Techniques, and Outcomes , 2016, Current Urology Reports.

[15]  Tristan Barrett,et al.  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 , 2016, BJU international.

[16]  J. Barentsz,et al.  The Future Trial: Fusion Target Biopsy of the Prostate Using Real-Time Ultrasound and MR Images. A Multicenter RCT on Target Biopsy Techniques in the Diagnosisof Prostate Cancer , 2015 .

[17]  Erhard Godehardt,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. , 2015, European urology.

[18]  H. Ahmed,et al.  Visually directed vs. software-based targeted biopsy compared to transperineal template mapping biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. , 2015, Urologic oncology.

[19]  T. Kwon,et al.  Pathological upgrading in prostate cancer patients eligible for active surveillance: Does prostate-specific antigen density matter? , 2015, Korean journal of urology.

[20]  B. Hadaschik,et al.  The current and future role of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer detection and management , 2015, Translational andrology and urology.

[21]  Andrew B Rosenkrantz,et al.  Optimization of prostate biopsy: the role of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in detection, localization and risk assessment. , 2014, The Journal of urology.

[22]  M. Stifelman,et al.  A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial. , 2014, European urology.

[23]  F. Schröder,et al.  Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. , 2014, European urology.

[24]  Samir S Taneja,et al.  Standards for prostate biopsy , 2014, Current opinion in urology.

[25]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. , 2013, European urology.

[26]  P. Choyke,et al.  Utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging suspicion levels for detecting prostate cancer. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[27]  C Allen,et al.  Prostate MRI: who, when, and how? Report from a UK consensus meeting. , 2013, Clinical radiology.

[28]  J. Fütterer,et al.  Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. , 2013, European urology.

[29]  Xavier Leroy,et al.  Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy--prospective multicenter study. , 2013, Radiology.

[30]  S. Verma,et al.  The feasibility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for targeted biopsy using novel navigation systems to detect early stage prostate cancer: the preliminary experience. , 2013, Journal of endourology.

[31]  Christiaan G Overduin,et al.  MRI-Guided Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Detection: A Systematic Review of Current Clinical Results , 2013, Current Urology Reports.

[32]  H. Ahmed,et al.  Transperineal magnetic resonance image targeted prostate biopsy versus transperineal template prostate biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[33]  Naira Muradyan,et al.  Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer detection: comparison of random and targeted biopsies. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[34]  H. Hricak,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging for predicting prostate biopsy findings in patients considered for active surveillance of clinically low risk prostate cancer. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[35]  Jelle O. Barentsz,et al.  MRI-guided and robotic-assisted prostate biopsy , 2012, Current opinion in urology.

[36]  J. Fütterer,et al.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012 , 2012, European Radiology.

[37]  Mana Ishibashi,et al.  Detection and Localization of Prostate Cancer With the Targeted Biopsy Strategy Based on ADC Map: A Prospective Large-Scale Cohort Study , 2012, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[38]  Georgios Sakas,et al.  A novel stereotactic prostate biopsy system integrating pre-interventional magnetic resonance imaging and live ultrasound fusion. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[39]  B. K. Park,et al.  Prospective evaluation of 3-T MRI performed before initial transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with high prostate-specific antigen and no previous biopsy. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[40]  G. Haber,et al.  Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging‐targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection , 2011, BJU international.

[41]  Pingkun Yan,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[42]  Yipeng Hu,et al.  Characterizing clinically significant prostate cancer using template prostate mapping biopsy. , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[43]  Clare Allen,et al.  Is it time to consider a role for MRI before prostate biopsy? , 2009, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

[44]  A. D'Amico,et al.  Outcome based staging for clinically localized adenocarcinoma of the prostate. , 1997, The Journal of urology.

[45]  P. Walsh,et al.  Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. , 1994, JAMA.

[46]  A S Whittemore,et al.  Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer , 1993, Cancer.

[47]  M. Terris,et al.  Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. , 1989, The Journal of urology.

[48]  P. Carroll,et al.  NCCN Guidelines Insights: Prostate Cancer Early Detection, Version 2.2016. , 2016, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.

[49]  Katarzyna J Macura,et al.  Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 Guidelines for Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Recommendations for Use. , 2016, European urology.

[50]  C. Catalano,et al.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging vs. standard care in men being evaluated for prostate cancer: a randomized study. , 2015, Urologic oncology.

[51]  A. Fenster,et al.  Evaluation of MRI-TRUS fusion versus cognitive registration accuracy for MRI-targeted, TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. , 2015, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[52]  Mark Emberton,et al.  Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. , 2013, European urology.

[53]  Shyam Natarajan,et al.  Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion device. , 2013, The Journal of urology.

[54]  Thomas Wiegel,et al.  Guidelines on Prostate Cancer , 2013 .

[55]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Prospective assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using 3-T diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies versus a systematic 10-core transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy cohort. , 2012, European urology.