Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · The Arab Journal of Interventional Radiology 2020; 4(02): 111-116
DOI: 10.4103/AJIR.AJIR_32_19
Original Article

Single-Center Experience in Targeted Prostate Biopsy Using Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging‑Transrectal Ultrasound Elastic Fusion Technique

Jennifer Farah
Department of Radiologyt, Saint George University Medical Center, University of Balamand, Achrafieh, Beirut, Lebanon
,
Gerard El-Hajj
Department of Radiologyt, Saint George University Medical Center, University of Balamand, Achrafieh, Beirut, Lebanon
,
Edward Assaf
Department of Urologyt, Saint George University Medical Center, University of Balamand, Achrafieh, Beirut, Lebanon
,
Abdallah Noufaily
Department of Radiologyt, Saint George University Medical Center, University of Balamand, Achrafieh, Beirut, Lebanon
,
Abbas Chamsuddin
Department of Radiologyt, Saint George University Medical Center, University of Balamand, Achrafieh, Beirut, Lebanon
,
Michel Jabbour
Department of Urologyt, Saint George University Medical Center, University of Balamand, Achrafieh, Beirut, Lebanon
,
Fatmeh Ghandour
Department of Anatomic Pathology, Saint George University Medical Center, University of Balamand, Achrafieh, Beirut, Lebanon
,
Emilie Fayad
Department of Radiologyt, Saint George University Medical Center, University of Balamand, Achrafieh, Beirut, Lebanon
,
Raja Ashou
Department of Radiologyt, Saint George University Medical Center, University of Balamand, Achrafieh, Beirut, Lebanon
› Author Affiliations Financial support and sponsorship Nil.
› Further Information
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

Introduction: Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided random biopsies are used to be the gold standard when diagnosing prostate cancer. A relatively new system with organ tracking that fuses real-time TRUS images with previously acquired multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) images for prostate biopsy guidance is presented here. The primary goal of the study is to correlate (1) the mpMRI findings with the Gleason score grading of the prostate biopsies performed under mpMRI-TRUS elastic fusion and (2) the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels with the Gleason grading. Materials and Methods: Between January 2017 and August 2018, 58 patients had targeted prostate biopsy using mpMRI-TRUS elastic fusion technique (Urostation). These patients had previously the mpMRI of the prostate at our center using three-dimensional T2-weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging, and dynamic contrast enhanced imaging. Of all 58 patients, 32 patients were classified as having Prostate Imaging-Reporting And Data System (PI-RADS) 4/5, 21 patients as PI-RADS 3, and five as PI-RADS 2. Results: Twenty-seven patients had positive biopsies for prostate cancer. Positive results were found in 25 patients having PI-RADS 4/5 (25 out of 32). Of these patients, 20 had positive specimens from the dominant lesion, four from both the targeted lesion and nontargeted areas, and one from a nontargeted area. Positive results were found in two patients classified as PI-RADS 3 from targeted and nontargeted areas. These results show that 78% of the patients classified by mpMRI as PI-RADS 4/5 and 10% of the patients classified as PI-RADS 3 had positive biopsies for prostate cancer. The results also showed a correlation between the PI-RADS score on mpMRI, the Gleason score, and the PSA levels. Conclusion: mpMRI-TRUS fusion biopsy is a safe and accurate method for targeted prostate biopsies. Our preliminary results are comparable to the published international numbers and show a good correlation between the PI-RADS classification and histopathology, as well as correlation between PI-RADS, Gleason scores, and PSA levels of positive biopsies.

Gleason score - multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging - multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound elastic fusion biopsy - Prostate Imaging-Reporting And Data System - prostate-specific antigen - prostate - targeted biopsy


Publication History

Received: 25 November 2019
Received: 22 January 2020

Accepted: 06 February 2020

Article published online:
26 March 2021

© 2020. The Arab Journal of Interventional Radiology. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 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 naïve men. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:571708. doi:10.1155/2015/571708.
  • 2 Expert Panel on Urologic Imaging, Coakley FV, Oto A, Alexander LF, Allen BC, Davis BJ, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria® prostate cancer-pretreatment detection, surveillance, and staging. J Am Coll Radiol 2017;14:S245-57.
  • 3 Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018;378:1767-77.
  • 4 Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, Catto J, Emberton M, Nam R, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 2013;64:876-92.
  • 5 McCormack M, Duclos A, Latour M, McCormack MH, Liberman D, Djahangirian O, et al. Effect of needle size on cancer detection, pain, bleeding and infection in TRUS-guided prostate biopsies: A prospective trial. Can Urol Assoc J 2012;6:97-101.
  • 6 Ukimura O, Coleman JA, de la Taille A, Emberton M, Epstein JI, Freedland SJ, et al. Contemporary role of systematic prostate biopsies: Indications, techniques, and implications for patient care. Eur Urol 2013;63:214-30.
  • 7 Baco E, Rud E, Eri LM, Moen G, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A, 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;69:149-56.
  • 8 Tyson MD, Arora SS, Scarpato KR, Barocas D. Magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2016;34:326-32.
  • 9 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.
  • 10 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;75:863-71.
  • 11 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;187:1080-6.
  • 12 Cornud F, Roumiguié M, Barry de Longchamps N, Ploussard G, Bruguière E, Portalez D, et al. Precision matters in MR imaging-targeted prostate biopsies: Evidence from a prospective study of cognitive and elastic fusion registration transrectal biopsies. Radiology 2018;287:534-42.
  • 13 Koelis; 2018. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JolV6cURwLk. [Last accessed on 2019 Nov 02].
  • 14 Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): A paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017;389:815-22.
  • 15 Hansen NL, Barrett T, Kesch C, Pepdjonovic L, Bonekamp D, O'Sullivan R, et al. Multicentre evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging supported transperineal prostate biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer. BJU Int 2018;122:40-9.
  • 16 Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Sciarra A, Ciardi A, Indino EL, Papalia R, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging vs. standard care in men being evaluated for prostate cancer: A randomized study. Urol Oncol 2015;33:17.e1-000000.
  • 17 Hoeks CM, Somford DM, van Oort IM, Vergunst H, Oddens JR, Smits GA, et al. Value of 3-T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance-guided biopsy for early risk restratification in active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer: A prospective multicenter cohort study. Invest Radiol 2014;49:165-72.
  • 18 Numao N, Yoshida S, Komai Y, Ishii C, Kagawa M, Kijima T, et al. Usefulness of pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical variables to reduce initial prostate biopsy in men with suspected clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2013;190:502-8.
  • 19 de Gorski A, Rouprêt M, Peyronnet B, Le Cossec C, Granger B, Comperat E, et al. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion targeted biopsies to diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer in enlarged compared to smaller prostates. J Urol 2015;194:669-73.
  • 20 Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George AK, Rothwax J, Shakir N, et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 2015;313:390-7.
  • 21 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.
  • 22 Diamand R, Oderda M, Al Hajj Obeid W, Albisinni S, Van Velthoven R, Fasolis G, et al. A multicentric study on accurate grading of prostate cancer with systematic and MRI/US fusion targeted biopsies: Comparison with final histopathology after radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 2019;37:2109-17.
  • 23 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;189:493-9.
  • 24 Hossack T, Patel MI, Huo A, Brenner P, Yuen C, Spernat D, et al. Location and pathological characteristics of cancers in radical prostatectomy specimens identified by transperineal biopsy compared to transrectal biopsy. J Urol 2012;188:781-5.
  • 25 Xiang J, Yan H, Li J, Wang X, Chen H, Zheng X. Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol 2019;17:31.
  • 26 de Gorski A, Rouprêt M, Peyronnet B, Le Cossec C, Granger B, Comperat E, et al. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion targeted biopsies to diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer in enlarged compared to smaller prostates. J Urol 2015;194:669-73.
  • 27 11th International Symposium on Focal Therapy and Imaging in Prostate and Kidney Cancer; 2019. Available from: https://www.focaltherapy.org/2019/NEWSLETTERS/vol1-sept18.html. [Last accessed 2020 Jan 7].