Objective: Targeted fusion biopsies have led to an improved prostate cancer (PCa) detection rate (CDR). Our aim was to assess if device-assisted fusion biopsies are superior to cognitive ones in terms of CDR. The association between multiparametric MRI parameters and PCa was also evaluated. Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 50 patients who underwent transrectal biopsy with elastic fusion (Koelis; group KB, n = 25) or cognitive approach (group CB, n = 25). Targeted biopsies were done on targets, while a variable number of random biopsies were performed depending on the clinical case. Results: The groups did not significantly differ in terms of age, prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume and previous biopsies. Mean number of random cores was significantly inferior in KB group (8.4 vs. 12.1) and mean number of targeted biopsies was significantly higher (3.6 vs. 2.6). CDR was higher in fusion biopsies (64 vs. 40%), with the gap becoming significant when considering CDR of MRI targets only (59 vs. 27%). The difference was marked for lesions ≤10 mm, where CDR was 52% in KB against 21% in CB group. Conclusions: According to our study, elastic fusion biopsies performed with Koelis achieve an increased per-patient and per-lesion CDR as compared to cognitive biopsies, especially in the case of lesions ≤10 mm.

Keywords:
Prostate cancer, Biopsy, Elastic fusion, MRI, Cognitive
1.
Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, Barentsz JO, Carey B, Futterer JJ, et al: Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 2011;59:477-494.
2.
Thompson JE, Moses D, Shnier R, Brenner P, Delprado W, Ponsky L, et al: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging guided diagnostic biopsy detects significant prostate cancer and could reduce unnecessary biopsies and over detection: a prospective study. J Urol 2014;192:67-74.
3.
Fütterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P, Emberton M, Giannarini G, Kirkham A, et al: Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2015;68:1045-1053.
4.
Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MG: 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. Eur Urol 2015;68:438-450.
5.
Valerio M, Donaldson I, Emberton M, Ehdaie B, Hadaschik BA, Marks LS, et al: Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2015;68:8-19.
6.
Logan JK, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, Gomella A, Amalou H, Choyke PL, Wood BJ, Pinto PA: Current status of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography fusion software platforms for guidance of prostate biopsies. BJU Int 2014;114:641-652.
7.
Sonn GA, Margolis DJ, Marks LS: Target detection: magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy. Urol Oncol 2014;32:903-911.
8.
Ukimura O, Desai MM, Palmer S, Valencerina S, Gross M, Abreu AL, et al: 3-Dimensional elastic registration system of prostate biopsy location by real-time 3-dimensional transrectal ultrasound guidance with magnetic resonance/transrectal ultrasound image fusion. J Urol 2012;187:1080-1086.
9.
Mozer P, Rouprêt M, Le Cossec C, Granger B, Comperat E, de Gorski A, et al: First round of targeted biopsies using magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion compared with conventional transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsies for the diagnosis of localised prostate cancer. BJU Int 2015;115:50-57.
10.
Peltier A, Aoun F, Lemort M, Kwizera F, Paesmans M, Van Velthoven R: MRI-targeted biopsies versus systematic transrectal ultrasound guided biopsies for the diagnosis of localized prostate cancer in biopsy naive men. Biomed Res Int 2015;2015:571708.
11.
Ukimura O, Gross ME, de Castro Abreu AL, Azhar RA, Matsugasumi T, Ushijima S, et al: A novel technique using three-dimensionally documented biopsy mapping allows precise re-visiting of prostate cancer foci with serial surveillance of cell cycle progression gene panel. Prostate 2015;75:863-871.
12.
Delongchamps NB, Peyromaure M, Schull A, Beuvon F, Bouazza N, Flam T, et al: Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer detection: comparison of random and targeted biopsies. J Urol 2013;189:493-499.
13.
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.
14.
Portalez D, Mozer P, Cornud F, Renard-Penna R, Misrai V, Thoulouzan M, et al: Validation of the European society of urogenital radiology scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in a cohort of repeat biopsy patients. Eur Urol 2012;62:986-996.
15.
Rud E, Baco E, Eggesbø HB: MRI and ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy using soft image fusion. Anticancer Res 2012;32:3383-3389.
16.
Valerio M, McCartan N, Freeman A, Punwani S, Emberton M, Ahmed HU: Visually directed vs. software-based targeted biopsy compared to transperineal template mapping biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2015;33:424.e9-e16.
17.
Puech P, Rouvière O, Renard-Penna R, Villers A, Devos P, Colombel M, et al: 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.
18.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA: Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205-213.
19.
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al: ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22:746-757.
20.
Faletti R, Battisti G, Discalzi A, Grognardi ML, Martinello S, Oderda M, et al: Can DW-MRI, with its ADC values, be a reliable predictor of biopsy outcome in patients with suspected prostate cancer? Abdom Radiol 2016;41:926-933.
21.
Moore CM, Robertson NL, Arsanious N, Middleton T, Villers A, Klotz L, et al: Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2013;63:125-140.
22.
Shen PF, Zhu YC, Wei WR, Li YZ, Yang J, Li YT, et al: The results of transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Androl 2012;14:310-315.
23.
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.
24.
Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, Stifelman MD, Lepor H, Deng FM, Melamed J, Taneja SS: 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. Eur Urol 2014;66:343-351.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
2016
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.