Objective: Evaluating the predictive factors that enable identifying men in which a sole MRI/ultrasound (MRI/US) fusion-guided targeted biopsy (TB) detects the maximal prostate cancer (PCa) risk group. Patients and Methods: Retrospective analysis of 251 consecutive patients who received a sensor-based, real-time MRI/US TB in combination with a 10-core systematic biopsy (SB) between August 2013 and July 2015. Univariate and multivariate binary regression analyses were performed to evaluate the predictors for equal/superior detection of the PCa risk group by TB compared to SB. Results: TB detected PCa in 63% (157/251); SB detected PCa in 70% (176/251); a combination of TB and SB detected PCa in 77% (193/251) of cancer patients. Fifty percent (291/584) of TB cores and 22% (539/2,486) of SB cores showed PCa. Predictors for equal/superior performance of a sole TB were lesion size (maximal diameter; OR 1.050, 95% CI 1.002-1.101, p = 0.043), suspicious digital rectal examination (DRE; OR 2.448, 95% CI 1.062-5.645, p = 0.036) and free/total prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ratio (f/t PSA ratio) ≤0.15 (OR 0.916, 95% CI 0.867-0.967, p = 0.002) on univariate regression analysis and f/t PSA ratio ≤0.15 (OR 0.916, 95% CI 0.867-0.967, p = 0.002) on multivariate regression analysis. Conclusion: The maximal axial diameter of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System-lesion and f/t PSA ratio and a suspicious DRE are possible selection criteria for men eligible for a sole MRI/US fusion-guided targeted prostate biopsy.

Keywords:
Multiparametric MRI, Prostate biopsy, Targeted biopsy, MRI/ultrasound fusion, Prostate cancer
1.
Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, et al: EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 2014;65:124-137.
2.
Irani J, Blanchet P, Salomon L, et al: Is an extended 20-core prostate biopsy protocol more efficient than the standard 12-core? A randomized multicenter trial. J Urol 2013;190:77-83.
3.
Eskicorapci SY, Baydar DE, Akbal C, et al: An extended 10-core transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsy protocol improves the detection of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2004;45:444-448; discussion 448-449.
4.
Rodríguez-Covarrubias F, González-Ramírez A, Aguilar-Davidov B, Castillejos-Molina R, Sotomayor M, Feria-Bernal G: Extended sampling at first biopsy improves cancer detection rate: results of a prospective, randomized trial comparing 12 versus 18-core prostate biopsy. J Urol 2011;185:2132-2136.
5.
Campos-Fernandes JL, Bastien L, Nicolaiew N, et al: Prostate cancer detection rate in patients with repeated extended 21-sample needle biopsy. Eur Urol 2009;55:600-606.
6.
Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, 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. Eur Urol 2014;66:343-351.
7.
Delongchamps NB, Peyromaure M, Schull A, et al: Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer detection: comparison of random and targeted biopsies. J Urol 2013;189:493-499.
8.
Pokorny MR, de Rooij M, Duncan E, 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. Eur Urol 2014;66:22-29.
9.
Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, et al: Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 2015;313:390-397.
10.
Rosenkrantz AB, Lepor H, Huang WC, Taneja SS: Practical barriers to obtaining pre-biopsy prostate MRI: assessment in over 1,500 consecutive men undergoing prostate biopsy in a single urologic practice. Urol Int 2016. Epub ahead of print.
11.
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al: ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22:746-757.
12.
Hamoen EH, de Rooij M, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM: Use of the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) for prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2015;67:1112-1121.
13.
Borkowetz A, Platzek I, Toma M, et al: 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.
14.
Radtke JP, Kuru TH, Boxler S, et al: Comparative analysis of transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy with magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion guidance. J Urol 2015;193:87-94.
15.
Salami SS, Ben-Levi E, Yaskiv O, et al: In patients with a previous negative prostate biopsy and a suspicious lesion on magnetic resonance imaging, is a 12-core biopsy still necessary in addition to a targeted biopsy? BJU Int 2015;115:562-570.
16.
Cash H, Maxeiner A, Stephan C, et al: The detection of significant prostate cancer is correlated with the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) in MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. World J Urol 2016;34:525-532.
17.
Almeida GL, Petralia G, Ferro M, et al: Role of multi-parametric magnetic resonance image and PIRADS score in patients with prostate cancer eligible for active surveillance according PRIAS criteria. Urol Int 2016;96:459-469.
18.
Baco E, Rud E, Eri LM, et al: A randomized controlled trial to assess and compare the outcomes of two-core prostate biopsy guided by fused magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound images and traditional 12-core systematic biopsy. Eur Urol 2016;69:149-156.
19.
Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V, Eggener S, et al: Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an international working group. Eur Urol 2013;64:544-552.
20.
Yamamoto S, Maruyama T, Kondoh N, et al: Diagnostic efficacy of free to total ratio of prostate-specific antigen and prostate-specific antigen velocity, singly and in combination, in detecting prostate cancer in patients with total serum prostate-specific antigen between 4 and 10 ng/ml. Int Urol Nephrol 2008;40:85-89.
21.
Ciatto S, Bonardi R, Lombardi C, et al: Predicting prostate biopsy outcome by findings at digital rectal examination, transrectal ultrasonography, PSA, PSA density and free-to-total PSA ratio in a population-based screening setting. Int J Biol Markers 2001;16:179-182.
22.
Brock M, Löppenberg B, Roghmann F, et al: Impact of real-time elastography on magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided biopsy in patients with prior negative prostate biopsies. J Urol 2015;193:1191-1197.
23.
Turkbey B, Mani H, Shah V, et al: 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.
24.
Rais-Bahrami S, Türkbey B, Rastinehad AR, et al: Natural history of small index lesions suspicious for prostate cancer on multiparametric MRI: recommendations for interval imaging follow-up. Diagn Interv Radiol 2014;20:293-298.
25.
Cash H, Günzel K, Maxeiner A, et al: Prostate cancer detection on transrectal ultrasonography-guided random biopsy despite negative real-time magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion-guided targeted biopsy: reasons for targeted biopsy failure. BJU Int 2016;118:35-43.
26.
Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D, et al: Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS version 2 lexicon: a multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology 2016;280:793-804.
27.
Huang Y, Cheng G, Liu B, et al: A prostate biopsy strategy based on a new clinical nomogram reduces the number of biopsy cores required in high-risk patients. BMC Urol 2014;14:8.
28.
Kitagawa Y, Ueno S, Izumi K, et al: Cumulative probability of prostate cancer detection in biopsy according to free/total PSA ratio in men with total PSA levels of 2.1-10.0 ng/ml at population screening. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2014;140:53-59.
29.
Radtke JP, Kuru TH, Boxler S, et al: Comparative analysis of transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy with magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion guidance. J Urol 2015;193:87-94.
30.
Potter SR, Horniger W, Tinzl M, Bartsch G, Partin AW: Age, prostate-specific antigen, and digital rectal examination as determinants of the probability of having prostate cancer. Urology 2001;57:1100-1104.
31.
Gosselaar C, Roobol MJ, van den Bergh RC, Wolters T, Schröder FH: Digital rectal examination and the diagnosis of prostate cancer - a study based on 8 years and three screenings within the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer (ERSPC), Rotterdam. Eur Urol 2009;55:139-146.
32.
Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong H, et al: Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol 2013;64:713-719.
33.
Kuru TH, Roethke MC, Seidenader J, et al: Critical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging targeted, transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal fusion biopsy for detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 2013;190:1380-1386.
34.
Radtke JP, Schwab C, Wolf MB, et al: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy for index tumor detection: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimen. Eur Urol 2016;pii:S0302-2838(16)00010-5.
© 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.