Purpose: To assess MRI/Transrectal Ultrasound (TRUS) fusion three-dimensional model-guided targeted biopsy (3D-Tb) versus TRUS-guided systematic biopsy (Sb) in detecting overall and high-Gleason-score (≥7) prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: Pubmed and Web of science were searched. Studies with men having a suspicious lesion on MRI were included, which were divided into initial biopsy, previous negative biopsy, and mixed groups in meta-analysis. Results: Totally 13 cohorts in 12 studies, with 3,225 men were included. In total population, 3D-Tb and Sb did not differ significantly in the PCa detection rate (43.1 vs. 42.6%, p = 0.36), but after excluding initial biopsy group, the superiority of 3D-Tb became significant (p = 0.01); 3D-Tb had a significantly higher detection rate of high-Gleason-score PCa compared to Sb (30.0 vs. 24.1%, p < 0.05); 3D-Tb plus Sb significantly improved the PCa detection rate based on Sb alone (52.7 vs. 42.6%, p < 0.05). Conclusions: In men with increased serum PSA and/or abnormal DRE and suspicious lesion on MRI but non-previous evidence of PCa, 3D-Tb plus Sb improves the PCa detection rate based on Sb alone. 3D-Tb alone has better performance in detecting high-Gleason-score PCa, and tends to have a higher PCa detection rate in population with previous negative biopsy compared to Sb.

Keywords:
Magnetic resonance imaging, Prostate biopsy, Prostate cancer, Transrectal ultrasound
1.
Ouzzane A, Coloby P, Mignard JP, Allegre JP, Soulie M, Rebillard X, Salomon L, Villers A: [Recommendations for best practice for prostate biopsy]. Prog Urol 2011; 21: 18–28.
2.
Takenaka A, Hara R, Ishimura T, Fujii T, Jo Y, Nagai A, Fujisawa M: A prospective randomized comparison of diagnostic efficacy between transperineal and transrectal 12-core prostate biopsy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2008; 11: 134–138.
3.
Carroll PR, Parsons JK, Andriole G, Bahnson RR, Castle EP, Catalona WJ, Dahl DM, Davis JW, Epstein JI, Etzioni RB, Farrington T, Hemstreet GP 3rd, Kawachi MH, Kim S, Lange PH, Loughlin KR, Lowrance W, Maroni P, Mohler J, Morgan TM, Moses KA, Nadler RB, Poch M, Scales C, Shaneyfelt TM, Smaldone MC, Sonn G, Sprenkle P, Vickers AJ, Wake R, Shead DA, Freedman-Cass DA: NCCN Guidelines Insights: Prostate Cancer Early Detection, Version 2.2016. J Nat Compr Canc Netw 2016; 14: 509–519.
4.
Raja J, Ramachandran N, Munneke G, Patel U: Current status of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Clin Radiol 2006; 61: 142–153.
5.
Miano R, De Nunzio C, Kim FJ, Rocco B, Gontero P, Vicentini C, Micali S, Oderda M, Masciovecchio S, Asimakopoulos AD: Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy for predicting the final laterality of prostate cancer: are they reliable enough to select patients for focal therapy? Results from a multicenter international study. Int Braz J Urol 2014; 40: 16–22.
6.
Jones JS: Saturation biopsy for detecting and characterizing prostate cancer. BJU Int 2007; 99: 1340–1344.
7.
Lane BR, Zippe CD, Abouassaly R, Schoenfield L, Magi-Galluzzi C, Jones JS: Saturation technique does not decrease cancer detection during followup after initial prostate biopsy. J Urol 2008; 179: 1746–1750; discussion 1750.
8.
Pereira RA, Costa RS, Muglia VF, Silva FF, Lajes JS, Dos Reis RB, Silva GE: Gleason score and tumor laterality in radical prostatectomy and transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate: a comparative study. Asian J Androl 2015; 17: 815–820.
9.
Jo JK, Hong SK, Byun SS, Lee SE, Lee SE, Oh JJ: Prognostic significance of the disparity between biopsy and pathologic gleason score after radical prostatectomy in clinical candidates for active surveillance according to the royal marsden criteria. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2016; 14:e329–e333.
10.
Zugor V, Poth S, Kühn R, Bernat MM, Porres D, Labanaris AP: Is an extended prostate biopsy scheme associated with an improvement in the accuracy between the biopsy gleason score and radical prostatectomy pathology? A multivariate analysis. Anticancer Res 2016; 36: 4285–4288.
11.
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: Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol 2013; 64: 713–719.
12.
Shao W, Wu RY, Thng CH, Ling KV, Ng WS: Integrating MRI and MRSI information into trus-guided robotic prostate biopsy. Int J Humanoid Robotics 2006; 3: 499–522.
13.
Kuru TH, Tulea C, Simpfendorfer T, Popeneciu V, Roethke M, Hadaschik BA, Hohenfellner M: MRI navigated stereotactic prostate biopsy. Fusion of MRI and real-time transrectal ultrasound images for perineal prostate biopsies. Urology 2012; 51: 50–56.
14.
Cool DW, Romagnoli C, Izawa JI, Chin J, Gardi L, Tessier D, Mercado A, Mandel J, Ward AD, Fenster A: Comparison of prostate MRI-3D transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy for first-time and repeat biopsy patients with previous atypical small acinar proliferation. Can Urol Assoc J 2016; 10: 342–348.
15.
Delongchamps NB, Portalez D, Bruguiere E, Rouviere O, Malavaud B, Mozer P, Fiard G, Cornud F, Grp MS: Are magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound guided targeted biopsies noninferior to transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer? J Urol 2016; 196: 1069–1075.
16.
Mendhiratta N, Rosenkrantz AB, Meng XS, Wysock JS, Fenstermaker M, Huang R, Deng FM, Melamed J, Zhou M, Huang WC, Lepor H, Taneja SS: Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted prostate biopsy in a cnsecutive cohort of men with no previous biopsy: reduction of over detection through improved risk stratification. J Urol 2015; 194: 1601–1606.
17.
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: Comparison of MRI/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. J Am Med Assoc 2015; 313: 390–397.
18.
Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, Mendhiratta N, Fenstermaker M, Huang R, Wysock JS, Bjurlin MA, Marshall S, Deng FM, Zhou M, Melamed J, Huang WC, Lepor H, Taneja SS: Relationship between prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), biopsy indication, and MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy outcomes. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 512–517.
19.
Ukimura O, Marien A, Palmer S, Villers A, Aron M, Abreu ALD, Leslie S, Shoji S, Matsugasumi T, Gross M, Dasgupta P, Gill IS: Trans-rectal ultrasound visibility of prostate lesions identified by magnetic resonance imaging increases accuracy of image-fusion targeted biopsies. World J Urol 2015; 33: 1669–1676.
20.
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: Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy–prospective multicenter study. Radiology 2013; 268: 461–469.
21.
Vourganti S, Rastinehad A, Yerram NK, Nix J, Volkin D, Hoang A, Turkbey B, Gupta GN, Kruecker J, Linehan WM, Choyke PL, Wood BJ, Pinto PA: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound fusion biopsy detect prostate cancer in patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies. J Urol 2012; 188: 2152–2157.
22.
Mendhiratta N, Meng XS, Rosenkrantz AB, Wysock JS, Fenstermaker M, Huang R, Deng FM, Melamed J, Zhou M, Huang WC, Lepor H, Taneja SS: Prebiopsy MRI and MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy in men with previous negative biopsies: impact on repeat biopsy strategies. Urology 2015; 86: 1192–1198.
23.
Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MGM: Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2015; 68: 438–450.
24.
Klein J, de Gorski A, Benamran D, Vallee JP, De Perrot T, Wirth GJ, Iselin CE: Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy for cancer detection: performance of 2D-, 3D- and 3D-MRI fusion targeted techniques. Urol Int 2017; 98: 7–14.
25.
Fiard G, Hohn N, Descotes JL, Rambeaud JJ, Troccaz J, Long JA: Targeted MRI-guided prostate biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer: initial clinical experience with real-time 3-dimensional transrectal ultrasound guidance and magnetic resonance/transrectal ultrasound image fusion. Urology 2013; 81: 1372–1378.
26.
NCCN: Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Prostate Cancer, Version 1. 2017. https://wwwnccnorg/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelinesasp#prostate, December 16. 2016.
27.
Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Partin AW, Novick AC, Peters CA: Grade, Chaper 96: Pathology of Prostatic Neoplasia, Campbell-Walsh Urolog, 10th Edition. Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier Inc., 2012: 3831.
28.
Kaplan I, Oldenburg NE, Meskell P, Blake M, Church P, Holupka EJ: Real time MRI-ultrasound image guided stereotactic prostate biopsy. Magn Reson Imaging 2002; 20: 295–299.
29.
Kim EH, Vemana G, Johnson MH, Vetter JM, Rensing AJ, Strother MC, Fowler KJ, Andriole GL: Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted vs. conventional transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: single-institution, matched cohort comparison. Urol Oncol 2015; 33: 109.e1–e6.
30.
Oberlin DT, Casalino DD, Miller FH, Matulewicz RS, Perry KT, Nadler RB, Kundu S, Catalona WJ, Meeks JJ: Diagnostic value of guided biopsies: fusion and cognitive-registration magnetic resonance imaging versus conventional ultrasound biopsy of the prostate. Urology 2016; 92: 75–77.
31.
Junker D, Schafer G, Heidegger I, Bektic J, Ladurner M, Jaschke W, Aigner F: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy of the prostate: preliminary results of a prospective single-centre study. Urol Int 2015; 94: 313–318.
© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel
2017
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.