Objective: To directly compare the diagnostic performance of targeted MRI-guided biopsy (MR-GB) and systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-GB). Methods: Thirty-five patients with at least one negative TRUS-GB, persistently elevated or rising prostate-specific antigen and a lesion suspicious for prostate cancer (PC) on multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) scored by using the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) were included. A median of three targeted biopsies per lesion were obtained and systematic TRUS-GB was performed subsequently by an independent urologist without knowledge of the MRI findings. Definite pathology reports were analyzed for anatomical location and criteria of clinical significance. Results: The tumor detection rate was significantly higher with MR-GB compared with TRUS-GB (16/35, 46% and 8/35, 23%, respectively, p < 0.05). MR-GB detected PC in all patients with positive TRUS-GB. All tumors detected by MR-GB exhibited at least one criterion of clinical significance. PC lesions showed a significantly higher PI-RADS sum score compared with benign lesions. Conclusions: MR-GB is more effective compared with TRUS-GB in detecting clinically significant PC in men after previous negative TRUS-GB. PI-RADS scores give additional information and could be part of the decision-making process when considering retrial biopsy. Additional systematic biopsy can be omitted in patients undergoing targeted MR-GB.

Keywords:
Prostate cancer, MRI-guided biopsy, Systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy, Diagnostic performance
1.
Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S, Kwiatkowski M, Lujan M, Auvinen A: Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1320-1328.
2.
Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS, Parnes HL, Minasian LM, Ford LG, Lippman SM, Crawford ED, Crowley JJ, Coltman CA Jr: Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or = 4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2239-2246.
3.
Maccagnano C, Gallina A, Roscigno M, Raber M, Capitanio U, Sacca A, Pellucchi F, Suardi N, Abdollah F, Montorsi F, Rigatti P, Scattoni V: Prostate saturation biopsy following a first negative biopsy: state of the art. Urol Int 2012;89:126-135.
4.
Colleselli D, Schilling D, Lichy MP, Hennenlotter J, Vogel UH, Krueger SA, Kuehs U, Schlemmer HP: Topographical sensitivity and specificity of endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection. Urol Int 2010;84:388-394.
5.
Anastasiadis AG, Lichy MP, Nagele U, Kuczyk MA, Merseburger AS, Hennenlotter J, Corvin S, Sievert KD, Claussen CD, Stenzl A, Schlemmer HP: MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate increases diagnostic performance in men with elevated or increasing PSA levels after previous negative TRUS biopsies. Eur Urol 2006;50:738-748; discussion 748-749.
6.
Beyersdorff D, Taymoorian K, Knosel T, Schnorr D, Felix R, Hamm B, Bruhn H: MRI of prostate cancer at 1.5 and 3.0 T: comparison of image quality in tumor detection and staging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:1214-1220.
7.
Engelhard K, Hollenbach HP, Kiefer B, Winkel A, Goeb K, Engehausen D: 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 2006;16:1237-1243.
8.
Hambrock T, Somford DM, Hoeks C, Bouwense SA, Huisman H, Yakar D, van Oort IM, Witjes JA, Futterer JJ, Barentsz JO: Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. J Urol 2010;183:520-527.
9.
Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, Barentsz JO, Carey B, Futterer JJ, Heijmink SW, Hoskin PJ, Kirkham A, Padhani AR, Persad R, Puech P, Punwani S, Sohaib AS, Tombai B, Villers A, van der Meulen J, Emberton M: Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 2011;59:477-494.
10.
Beyersdorff D, Winkel A, Hamm B, Lenk S, Loening SA, Taupitz M: MR imaging-guided prostate biopsy with a closed MR unit at 1.5 T: initial results. Radiology 2005;234:576-581.
11.
Franiel T, Stephan C, Erbersdobler A, Dietz E, Maxeiner A, Hell N, Huppertz A, Miller K, Strecker R, Hamm B: 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 2011;259:162-172.
12.
Eggert T, Khaled W, Wenske S, Ermert H, Noldus J: Impact of elastography in clinical diagnosis of prostate cancer. A comparison of cancer detection between B-mode sonography and elastography-guided 10-core biopsies (in German). Urologe A 2008;47:1212-1217.
13.
Brock M, von Bodman C, Palisaar RJ, Loppenberg B, Sommerer F, Deix T, Noldus J, Eggert T: The impact of real-time elastography guiding a systematic prostate biopsy to improve cancer detection rate: a prospective study of 353 patients. J Urol 2012;187:2039-2043.
14.
Loch T: Prostate cancer diagnostics: innovative imaging in case of multiple negative biopsies. World J Urol 2011;29:607-614.
15.
Taverna G, Morandi G, Seveso M, Giusti G, Benetti A, Colombo P, Minuti F, Grizzi F, Grazziotti P: Colour Doppler and microbubble contrast agent ultrasonography do not improve cancer detection rate in transrectal systematic prostate biopsy sampling. BJU Int 2011;108:1723-1727.
16.
Loch T: Computerized transrectal ultrasound (C-TRUS) of the prostate: detection of cancer in patients with multiple negative systematic random biopsies. World J Urol 2007;25:375-380.
17.
Scattoni V, Zlotta A, Montironi R, Schulman C, Rigatti P, Montorsi F: Extended and saturation prostatic biopsy in the diagnosis and characterisation of prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol 2007;52:1309-1322.
18.
Zaytoun OM, Stephenson AJ, Fareed K, El-Shafei A, Gao T, Levy D, Jones JS: When serial prostate biopsy is recommended: most cancers detected are clinically insignificant. BJU Int 2012;110:987-992.
19.
Turkbey B, Shah VP, Pang Y, Bernado M, Xu S, Kruecker J, Locklin J, Baccala AA, Rastinehad AR, Merino MJ, Shih JH, Wood BJ, Pinto PA, Choyke PL: Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? Radiology 2011;258:488-495.
20.
Hambrock T, Hoeks C, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, Scheenen T, Fütterer J, Bouwense S, van Oort I, Schröder F, Huisman H, Barentsz J: Prospective assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using 3-T diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies versus a systematic 10-core ultrasound prostate biopsy cohort. Eur Urol 2012;61:177-184.
21.
Bott SR, Young MP, Kellett MJ, Parkinson MC; Contributors to the UCL Hospitalsʼ Trust Radical Prostatectomy Database: Anterior prostate cancer: is it more difficult to diagnose? BJU Int 2002;89:886-889.
22.
Roethke M, Anastasiadis AG, Lichy M, Werner M, Wagner P, Kruck S, Claussen CD, Stenzl A: MRI-guided prostate biopsy detects clinically significant cancer: analysis of a cohort of 100 patients after previous negative TRUS biopsy. World J Urol 2012;30:213-218.
23.
Schimmoller L, Quentin M, Arsov C, Lanzman RS, Hiester A, Rabenalt R, Antoch G, Albers P, Blondin D: Inter-reader agreement of the ESUR score for prostate MRI using in-bore MRI-guided biopsies as the reference standard. Eur Radiol 2013;23:3185-3190.
© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel
2014
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.