Objectives: The study aimed to evaluate the prediction of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) with respect to the prostate cancer (PCa) detection rate and tumor aggressiveness in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasound-fusion-biopsy (fusPbx) and in systematic biopsy (sysPbx). Materials and Methods: Six hundred and twenty five patients undergoing multiparametric MRI were investigated. MRI findings were classified using PI-RADS v1 or v2. All patients underwent fusPbx combined with sysPbx (comPbx). The lesion with the highest PI-RADS was defined as maximum PI-RADS (maxPI-RADS). Gleason Score ≥7 (3 + 4) was defined as significant PCa. Results: The overall PCa detection rate was 51% (n = 321; 39% significant PCa). The detection rate was 43% in fusPbx (n = 267; 34% significant PCa) and 36% in sysPbx (n = 223; 27% significant PCa). Nine percentage of significant PCa were detected by sysPbx alone. A total of 1,162 lesions were investigated. The detection rate of significant PCa in lesions with PI-RADS 2, 3, 4, and 5 were 9% (18/206), 12% (56/450), 27% (98/358), and 61% (90/148) respectively. maxPI-RADS ≥4 was the strongest predictor for the detection of significant PCa in comPbx (OR 2.77; 95% CI 1.81-4.24; p < 0.005). Conclusions: maxPI-RADS is the strongest predictor for the detection of significant PCa in comPbx. Due to a high detection rate of additional significant PCa in sysPbx, fusPbx should still be combined with sysPbx.

Keywords:
Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy, Multiparametric MRI, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System, Prediction, Prostate cancer, Systematic biopsy
1.
Delongchamps NB, Lefèvre A, Bouazza N, Beuvon F, Legman P, Cornud F: Detection of significant prostate cancer with magnetic resonance targeted biopsies - should transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging fusion guided biopsies alone be a standard of care? J Urol 2015;193:1198-1204.
2.
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.
3.
Schimmöller L, Blondin D, Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Albers P, Antoch G, Quentin M: MRI-guided in-bore biopsy: differences between prostate cancer detection and localization in primary and secondary biopsy settings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016;206:92-99.
4.
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.
5.
Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, Rouviere O, Logager V, Fütterer JJ; European Society of Urogenital Radiology: ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22:746-757.
6.
Cash H, Maxeiner A, Stephan C, Fischer T, Durmus T, Holzmann J, Asbach P, Haas M, Hinz S, Neymeyer J, Miller K, Günzel K, Kempkensteffen C: 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.
7.
Junker D, Quentin M, Nagele U, Edlinger M, Richenberg J, Schaefer G, Ladurner M, Jaschke W, Horninger W, Aigner F: Evaluation of the PI-RADS scoring system for mpMRI of the prostate: a whole-mount step-section analysis. World J Urol 2015;33:1023-1030.
8.
Roethke MC, Kuru TH, Schultze S, Tichy D, Kopp-Schneider A, Fenchel M, Schlemmer HP, Hadaschik BA: Evaluation of the ESUR PI-RADS scoring system for multiparametric MRI of the prostate with targeted MR/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy at 3.0 tesla. Eur Radiol 2014;24:344-352.
9.
Schimmöller 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.
10.
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.
11.
Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V, Eggener S, Emberton M, Fütterer JJ, Gill IS, Grubb Iii RL, Hadaschik B, Klotz L, Margolis DJ, Marks LS, Melamed J, Oto A, Palmer SL, Pinto P, Puech P, Punwani S, Rosenkrantz AB, Schoots IG, Simon R, Taneja SS, Turkbey B, Ukimura O, van der Meulen J, Villers A, Watanabe Y; START Consortium: Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. Eur Urol 2013;64:544-552.
12.
Delongchamps NB, Peyromaure M, Schull A, Beuvon F, Bouazza N, Flam T, Zerbib M, Muradyan N, Legman P, Cornud F: Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer detection: comparison of random and targeted biopsies. J Urol 2013;189:493-499.
13.
Renard-Penna R, Mozer P, Cornud F, Barry-Delongchamps N, Bruguière E, Portalez D, Malavaud B: Prostate imaging reporting and data system and Likert scoring system: multiparametric MR imaging validation study to screen patients for initial biopsy. Radiology 2015;275:458-468.
14.
Rastinehad AR, Waingankar N, Turkbey B, Yaskiv O, Sonstegard AM, Fakhoury M, Olsson CA, Siegel DN, Choyke PL, Ben-Levi E, Villani R: Comparison of multiparametric MRI scoring systems and the impact on cancer detection in patients undergoing MR US fusion guided prostate biopsies. PLoS One 2015;10:e0143404.
15.
Filson CP, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, Huang J, Lieu P, Dorey FJ, Reiter RE, Marks LS: Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: the role of systematic and targeted biopsies. Cancer 2016;122:884-892.
16.
Abd-Alazeez M, Kirkham A, Ahmed HU, Arya M, Anastasiadis E, Charman SC, Freeman A, Emberton M: Performance of multiparametric MRI in men at risk of prostate cancer before the first biopsy: a paired validating cohort study using template prostate mapping biopsies as the reference standard. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2014;17:40-46.
17.
Wysock JS, Mendhiratta N, Zattoni F, Meng X, Bjurlin M, Huang WC, Lepor H, Rosenkrantz AB, Taneja SS: Predictive value of negative 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate on 12-core biopsy results. BJU Int 2016;118:515-520.
18.
Almeida GL, Petralia G, Ferro M, Ribas CA, Detti S, Jereczek-Fossa BA, Matei DV, Coman I, De Cobelli O, Tagliabue E: 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.
19.
Cash H, Günzel K, Maxeiner A, Stephan C, Fischer T, Durmus T, Miller K, Asbach P, Haas M, Kempkensteffen C: 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.
20.
Pokorny MR, de Rooij M, Duncan E, Schröder FH, Parkinson R, Barentsz JO, Thompson LC: 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.
21.
Liddell H, Jyoti R, Haxhimolla HZ: mp-MRI prostate characterised PIRADS 3 lesions are associated with a low risk of clinically significant prostate cancer - a retrospective review of 92 biopsied PIRADS 3 lesions. Curr Urol 2015;8:96-100.
22.
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.
23.
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 2016, Epub ahead of print.
24.
Thompson JE, Moses D, Shnier R, Brenner P, Delprado W, Ponsky L, Pulbrook M, Böhm M, Haynes AM, Hayen A, Stricker PD: 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.
25.
Kasivisvanathan V, Dufour R, Moore CM, Ahmed HU, Abd-Alazeez M, Charman SC, Freeman A, Allen C, Kirkham A, van der Meulen J, Emberton M: Transperineal magnetic resonance image targeted prostate biopsy versus transperineal template prostate biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. J Urol 2013;189:860-866.
26.
Radtke JP, Kuru TH, Boxler S, Alt CD, Popeneciu IV, Huettenbrink C, Klein T, Steinemann S, Bergstraesser C, Roethke M, Roth W, Schlemmer HP, Hohenfellner M, Hadaschik BA: 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.
© 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.