Introduction: Targeted biopsy of tumour-suspicious lesions detected in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) plays an increasing role in the active surveillance (AS) of patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). The aim of this study was to compare MRI/ultrasound-fusion biopsy (fusPbx) with systematic biopsy (sysPbx) in patients undergoing biopsy for AS. Methods: Patients undergoing mpMRI and transperineal fusPbx combined with transrectal sysPbx (comPbx) as surveillance biopsy were investigated. The detection of Gleason score upgrading and reclassification according to Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance criteria were evaluated. Results: Eighty-three patients were enrolled. PCa upgrading was detected in 39% by fusPbx and in 37% by sysPbx (p = 1.0). The percentage of patients who were reclassified in fusPbx and sysPbx (p = 0.45) were 64 and 59% respectively. ComPbx detected more frequently tumour upgrading than fusPbx (71 vs. 64%, p = 0.016) and sysPbx (71 vs. 59%, p < 0.001) and more patients had to be reclassified after comPbx than after fusPbx or sysPbx alone. Conclusions: The combination of fusPbx and sysPbx outperforms both modalities alone with regard to the detection of upgrading and reclassification in patients under AS. Because a high missing rate of significant PCa still exists in both biopsy modalities, a combination of fusPbx and sysPbx should be recommended in these patients.

Keywords:
Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy , Low-risk prostate cancer, Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, Systematic biopsy, Active surveillance
1.
Bokhorst LP, Valdagni R, Rannikko A, Kakehi Y, Pickles T, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ; PRIAS Study Group: A decade of active surveillance in the PRIAS study: an update and evaluation of the criteria used to recommend a switch to active treatment. Eur Urol 2016; 70: 954–960.
2.
Klotz L: Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep 2012; 4: 16.
3.
Moschini M, Carroll PR, Eggener SE, Epstein JI, Graefen M, Montironi R, Parker C: Low-risk prostate cancer: identification, management, and outcomes. Eur Urol 2017; 72: 238–249.
4.
Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P, Davis M, Peters TJ, Turner EL, Martin RM, Oxley J, Robinson M, Staffurth J, Walsh E, Bollina P, Catto J, Doble A, Doherty A, Gillatt D, Kockelbergh R, Kynaston H, Paul A, Powell P, Prescott S, Rosario DJ, Rowe E, Neal DE; ProtecT Study Group: 10-Year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 1415–1424.
5.
Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, Collaco-Moraes Y, Ward K, Hindley RG, Freeman A, Kirkham AP, Oldroyd R, Parker C, Emberton M; PROMIS Study Group: Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017; 389: 815–822.
6.
Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F, Bokhorst LP, Rannikko A, Klotz L, Villers A, Hugosson J, Moore CM: Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur urol 2015; 67: 627–636.
7.
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 MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 2015; 313: 390–397.
8.
Turkbey B, Mani H, Shah V, Rastinehad AR, Bernardo M, Pohida T, Pang Y, Daar D, Benjamin C, McKinney YL, Trivedi H, Chua C, Bratslavsky G, Shih JH, Linehan WM, Merino MJ, Choyke PL, Pinto PA: Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. J Urol 2011; 186: 1818–1824.
9.
Wegelin O, van Melick HH, Hooft L, Bosch JL, Reitsma HB, Barentsz JO, Somford DM: 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? Eur Urol 2017; 71: 517–531.
10.
Porpiglia F, Cantiello F, De Luca S, De Pascale A, Manfredi M, Mele F, Bollito E, Cirillo S, Damiano R, Russo F: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and active surveillance: how to better select insignificant prostate cancer? Int J Urol 2017; 23: 752–757.
11.
Radtke JP, Kuru TH, Bonekamp D, Freitag MT, Wolf MB, Alt CD, Hatiboglu G, Boxler S, Pahernik S, Roth W, Roethke MC, Schlemmer HP, Hohenfellner M, Hadaschik BA: Further reduction of disqualification rates by additional MRI-targeted biopsy with transperineal saturation biopsy compared with standard 12-core systematic biopsies for the selection of prostate cancer patients for active surveillance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2016; 19: 283–291.
12.
Abdi H, Pourmalek F, Zargar H, Walshe T, Harris AC, Chang SD, Eddy C, So AI, Gleave ME, Machan L, Goldenberg SL, Black PC: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging enhances detection of significant tumor in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Urology 2015; 85: 423–428.
13.
Graham J, Kirkbride P, Cann K, Hasler E, Prettyjohns M: Prostate cancer: summary of updated NICE guidance. BMJ 2014; 348: f7524.
14.
Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Briers E, Bolla M, Cornford P, De Santis M, Henry AM, Joniau S, Lam TB, Mason MD, Matveev VB, van der Poel HG, van der Kwast TH, Rouvière O, van den Bergh RCN, van den Broeck T, van Casteren NJ, Everaerts W, Marconi L, Moldovan VP: EAU – ESTRO – SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer, 2016.
15.
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, Rouviere O, Logager V, Futterer JJ; European Society of Urogenital Radiology: ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Urol 2012; 22: 746–757.
16.
Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Verma S, Thoeny HC, Tempany CM, Shtern F, Padhani AR, Margolis D, Macura KJ, Haider MA, Cornud F, Choyke PL: Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 guidelines for multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and recommendations for use. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 41–49.
17.
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, Margolis D, Schnall MD, Shtern F, Tempany CM, Thoeny HC, Verma S: PI-RADS prostate imaging – reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 16–40.
18.
Borkowetz A, Platzek I, Toma M, Laniado M, Baretton G, Froehner M, Koch R, Wirth M, Zastrow S: Comparison of systematic transrectal biopsy to transperineal magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. BJU Int 2015; 116: 873–879.
19.
Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft DK, AWMF): Konsultationsfassung: Interdisziplina?re Leitlinie der Qualita?t S3 zur Fru?herken-nung, Diagnose und Therapie der verschiedenen Stadien des Prostatakarzinoms, Lang- version 4.0, 2016 AWMF Registernummer: 043/022OL, http://leitlinienprogramm- onkologie.de/Prostatakarzinom.58.0.html.
20.
Bjurlin MA, Mendhiratta N, Wysock JS, Taneja SS: Multiparametric MRI and targeted prostate biopsy: improvements in cancer detection, localization, and risk assessment. Cent European J Urol 2016; 69: 9–18.
21.
Fascelli M, George AK, Frye T, Turkbey B, Choyke PL, Pinto PA: The role of MRI in active surveillance for prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep 2015; 16: 42.
22.
Hu JC, Chang E, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, Macairan M, Lieu P, Huang J, Sonn G, Dorey FJ, Marks LS: Targeted prostate biopsy in select men for active surveillance: do the Epstein criteria still apply? J Urol 2014; 192: 385–390.
23.
Nassiri N, Margolis DJ, Natarajan S, Sharma DS, Huang J, Dorey FJ, Marks LS: Targeted biopsy to detect gleason score upgrading during active surveillance for men with low versus intermediate risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2017; 197(3 pt 1):632–639.
24.
Hansen N, Patruno G, Wadhwa K, Gaziev G, Miano R, Barrett T, Gnanapragasam V, Doble A, Warren A, Bratt O, Kastner C: Magnetic resonance and ultrasound image fusion supported transperineal prostate biopsy using the ginsburg protocol: technique, learning points, and biopsy results. Eur Urol 2016; 70: 332–340.
25.
Hansen NL, Kesch C, Barrett T, Koo B, Radtke JP, Bonekamp D, Schlemmer HP, Warren AY, Wieczorek K, Hohenfellner M, Kastner C, Hadaschik B: Multicentre evaluation of targeted and systematic biopsies using magnetic resonance and ultrasound image-fusion guided transperineal prostate biopsy in patients with a previous negative biopsy. BJU Int 2017; 120: 631–638.
26.
Thompson JE, van Leeuwen PJ, Moses D, Shnier R, Brenner P, Delprado W, Pulbrook M, Bohm M, Haynes AM, Hayen A, Stricker PD: The diagnostic performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect significant prostate cancer. J Urol 2016; 195: 1428–1435.
27.
Costa DN, Yuan Q, Xi Y, Rofsky NM, Lenkinski RE, Lotan Y, Roehrborn CG, Francis F, Travalini D, Pedrosa I: Comparison of prostate cancer detection at 3-T MRI with and without an endorectal coil: a prospective, paired-patient study. Urol Oncol 2016; 34: 255.e7–e13.
28.
Pepe P, Cimino S, Garufi A, Priolo G, Russo GI, Giardina R, Reale G, Pennisi M, Morgia G: Confirmatory biopsy of men under active surveillance: extended versus saturation versus multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy. Scand J Urol 2017; 51: 260–263.
29.
Stamatakis L, Siddiqui MM, Nix JW, Logan J, Rais-Bahrami S, Walton-Diaz A, Hoang AN, Vourganti S, Truong H, Shuch B, Parnes HL, Turkbey B, Choyke PL, Wood BJ, Simon RM, Pinto PA: Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer. Cancer 2013; 119: 3359–3366.
30.
Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo G, Pennisi M: Can MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy replace saturation prostate biopsy in the re-evaluation of men in active surveillance? World J Urol 2016; 34: 1249–1253.
31.
Tran GN, Leapman MS, Nguyen HG, Cowan JE, Shinohara K, Westphalen AC, Carroll PR: Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy during prostate cancer active surveillance. Eur Urol 2017; 72: 275–281.
32.
Ma TM, Tosoian JJ, Schaeffer EM, Landis P, Wolf S, Macura KJ, Epstein JI, Mamawala M, Carter HB: The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy in active surveillance. Eur Urol 2017; 71: 174–180.
33.
Ouzzane A, Renard-Penna R, Marliere F, Mozer P, Olivier J, Barkatz J, Puech P, Villers A: Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy improves selection of patients considered for active surveillance for clinically low risk prostate cancer based on systematic biopsies. J Urol 2015; 194: 350–356.
34.
Borkowetz A, Platzek I, Toma M, Renner T, Herout R, Baunacke M, Laniado M, Baretton GB, Froehner M, Zastrow S, Wirth MP: Evaluation of prostate imaging reporting and data system classification in the prediction of tumor aggressiveness in targeted magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy. Urol Int 2017; 99: 177–185.
35.
Frye TP, George AK, Kilchevsky A, Maruf M, Siddiqui MM, Kongnyuy M, Muthigi A, Han H, Parnes HL, Merino M, Choyke PL, Turkbey B, Wood B, Pinto PA: Magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound guided fusion biopsy to detect progression in patients with existing lesions on active surveillance for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2017; 197(3 pt 1):640–646.
36.
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: Use of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Urol Oncol 2015; 33: 202.e1–e7.
37.
Kamrava M, Kishan AU, Margolis DJ, Huang J, Dorey F, Lieu P, Kupelian PA, Marks LS: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer improves Gleason score assessment in favorable risk prostate cancer. Pract Radiat Oncol 2015; 5: 411–416.
38.
Alberts AR, Roobol MJ, Drost FH, van Leenders GJ, Bokhorst LP, Bangma CH, Schoots IG: Risk-stratification based on magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen density may reduce unnecessary follow-up biopsy procedures in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int 2017; 120: 511–519.
39.
Lai WS, Gordetsky JB, Thomas JV, Nix JW, Rais-Bahrami S: Factors predicting prostate cancer upgrading on magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy in an active surveillance population. Cancer 2017; 123: 1941–1948.
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
2018
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.