Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Prostate Biopsy: Present and Future

  • Kim, Chan Kyo (Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
  • Received : 2014.04.14
  • Accepted : 2014.08.04
  • Published : 2015.02.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Systemic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUSBx) is the standard procedure for diagnosing prostate cancer (PCa), but reveals a limited accuracy for the detection of cancer. Currently, multiparametric MR imaging (mp-MRI) is increasingly regarded as a promising method to detect PCa with an excellent positive predictive value. The use of mp-MRI during a MRI-guided biopsy (MRGB) procedure improves the quality of a targeted biopsy. The aim of this article is to provide an overview about the MRGB technique for PCa detection, to review the accuracy and clinical indications of MRGB and discuss its current issues and further directions. A MRGB seems accurate and efficient for the detection of clinically significant PCa in men with previous negative TRUSBx. Moreover, it may decrease the detection of clinically insignificant cancers with fewer biopsy cores.

Keywords

References

  1. Schroder FH, Roobol MJ. Defining the optimal prostatespecific antigen threshold for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 2009;19:227-231 https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0b013e328329a2d0
  2. Schroder FH, Carter HB, Wolters T, van den Bergh RC, Gosselaar C, Bangma CH, et al. Early detection of prostate cancer in 2007. Part 1: PSA and PSA kinetics. Eur Urol 2008;53:468-477 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.10.047
  3. Schroder FH, van der Maas P, Beemsterboer P, Kruger AB, Hoedemaeker R, Rietbergen J, et al. Evaluation of the digital rectal examination as a screening test for prostate cancer. Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:1817-1823 https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/90.23.1817
  4. Noguchi M, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM. Relationship between systematic biopsies and histological features of 222 radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prediction of tumor significance for men with nonpalpable prostate cancer. J Urol 2001;166:104-109; discussion 109-110 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)66086-7
  5. Hambrock T, Hoeks C, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, Scheenen T, Futterer J, Bouwense S, et al. Prospective assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using 3-T diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies versus a systematic 10-core transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy cohort. Eur Urol 2012;61:177-184 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.08.042
  6. Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, Yakar D, Somford DM, Heijmink SW, et al. Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology 2011;261:46-66 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11091822
  7. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22:746-757 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y
  8. Kim CK, Park BK. Update of prostate magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2008;32:163-172 https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0b013e3180683b99
  9. Presti JC Jr, O'Dowd GJ, Miller MC, Mattu R, Veltri RW. Extended peripheral zone biopsy schemes increase cancer detection rates and minimize variance in prostate specific antigen and age related cancer rates: results of a community multi-practice study. J Urol 2003;169:125-129
  10. Eskew LA, Bare RL, McCullough DL. Systematic 5 region prostate biopsy is superior to sextant method for diagnosing carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 1997;157:199-202; discussion 202-203 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)65322-9
  11. Hricak H, Choyke PL, Eberhardt SC, Leibel SA, Scardino PT. Imaging prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary perspective. Radiology 2007;243:28-53 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2431030580
  12. Ouzzane A, Puech P, Lemaitre L, Leroy X, Nevoux P, Betrouni N, et al. Combined multiparametric MRI and targeted biopsies improve anterior prostate cancer detection, staging, and grading. Urology 2011;78:1356-1362 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.06.022
  13. Divrik RT, Eroglu A, Sahin A, Zorlu F, Ozen H. Increasing the number of biopsies increases the concordance of Gleason scores of needle biopsies and prostatectomy specimens. Urol Oncol 2007;25:376-382 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2006.08.028
  14. Kvale R, Moller B, Wahlqvist R, Fossa SD, Berner A, Busch C, et al. Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population-based study. BJU Int 2009;103:1647-1654 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08255.x
  15. Wolters T, Roobol MJ, van Leeuwen PJ, van den Bergh RC, Hoedemaeker RF, van Leenders GJ, et al. A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial. J Urol 2011;185:121-125 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.08.082
  16. Scattoni V, Zlotta A, Montironi R, Schulman C, Rigatti P, Montorsi F. Extended and saturation prostatic biopsy in the diagnosis and characterisation of prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol 2007;52:1309-1322 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.08.006
  17. Turkbey B, Mani H, Shah V, Rastinehad AR, Bernardo M, Pohida T, 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.07.013
  18. Rouse P, Shaw G, Ahmed HU, Freeman A, Allen C, Emberton M. Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging to rule-in and rule-out clinically important prostate cancer in men at risk: a cohort study. Urol Int 2011;87:49-53 https://doi.org/10.1159/000325880
  19. Marks L, Young S, Natarajan S. MRI-ultrasound fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsy. Curr Opin Urol 2013;23:43-50 https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0b013e32835ad3ee
  20. Park BK, Park JW, Park SY, Kim CK, Lee HM, Jeon SS, et al. Prospective evaluation of 3-T MRI performed before initial transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with high prostate-specific antigen and no previous biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;197:W876-W881 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.6829
  21. Puech P, Rouviere O, Renard-Penna R, Villers A, Devos P, Colombel M, et al. Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal USMR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy--prospective multicenter study. Radiology 2013;268:461-469 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13121501
  22. Kumar R, Nayyar R, Kumar V, Gupta NP, Hemal AK, Jagannathan NR, et al. Potential of magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging in predicting absence of prostate cancer in men with serum prostate-specific antigen between 4 and 10 ng/ml: a follow-up study. Urology 2008;72:859-863 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2008.01.014
  23. Rastinehad AR, Baccala AA Jr, Chung PH, Proano JM, Kruecker J, Xu S, et al. D'Amico risk stratification correlates with degree of suspicion of prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 2011;185:815-820 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.10.076
  24. Natarajan S, Marks LS, Margolis DJ, Huang J, Macairan ML, Lieu P, et al. Clinical application of a 3D ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy system. Urol Oncol 2011;29:334-342 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.02.014
  25. Sonn GA, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, MacAiran M, Lieu P, Huang J, et al. Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion device. J Urol 2013;189:86-91 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.095
  26. Pinto PA, Chung PH, Rastinehad AR, Baccala AA Jr, Kruecker J, Benjamin CJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 2011;186:1281-1285 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.05.078
  27. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Hoeks C, Bouwense SA, Huisman H, Yakar D, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. J Urol 2010;183:520-527 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.022
  28. Hoeks CM, Schouten MG, Bomers JG, Hoogendoorn SP, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Hambrock T, et al. Three-Tesla magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy in men with increased prostate-specific antigen and repeated, negative, random, systematic, transrectal ultrasound biopsies: detection of clinically significant prostate cancers. Eur Urol 2012;62:902-909 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.047
  29. Pondman KM, Futterer JJ, ten Haken B, Schultze Kool LJ, Witjes JA, Hambrock T, et al. MR-guided biopsy of the prostate: an overview of techniques and a systematic review. Eur Urol 2008;54:517-527 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.06.001
  30. Franiel T, Stephan C, Erbersdobler A, Dietz E, Maxeiner A, Hell N, et al. Areas suspicious for prostate cancer: MR-guided biopsy in patients with at least one transrectal US-guided biopsy with a negative finding--multiparametric MR imaging for detection and biopsy planning. Radiology 2011;259:162-172 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10101251
  31. Somford DM, Hoeks CM, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Hambrock T, Futterer JJ, Witjes JA, et al. Evaluation of diffusionweighted MR imaging at inclusion in an active surveillance protocol for low-risk prostate cancer. Invest Radiol 2013;48:152-157 https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0b013e31827b711e
  32. Vargas HA, Wassberg C, Akin O, Hricak H. MR imaging of treated prostate cancer. Radiology 2012;262:26-42 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11101996
  33. Rud E, Baco E, Lien D, Klotz D, Eggesbo HB. Detection of radiorecurrent prostate cancer using diffusion-weighted imaging and targeted biopsies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;202:W241-W246 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.10483
  34. 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.06.004
  35. Haffner J, Lemaitre L, Puech P, Haber GP, Leroy X, Jones JS, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. BJU Int 2011;108(8 Pt 2):E171-E178 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10112.x
  36. Mian BM, Naya Y, Okihara K, Vakar-Lopez F, Troncoso P, Babaian RJ. Predictors of cancer in repeat extended multisite prostate biopsy in men with previous negative extended multisite biopsy. Urology 2002;60:836-840 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(02)01950-7
  37. Philip J, Hanchanale V, Foster CS, Javle P. Importance of peripheral biopsies in maximising the detection of early prostate cancer in repeat 12-core biopsy protocols. BJU Int 2006;98:559-562 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06325.x
  38. Roehl KA, Antenor JA, Catalona WJ. Serial biopsy results in prostate cancer screening study. J Urol 2002;167:2435-2439 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64999-3
  39. Roethke M, Anastasiadis AG, Lichy M, Werner M, Wagner P, Kruck S, et al. MRI-guided prostate biopsy detects clinically significant cancer: analysis of a cohort of 100 patients after previous negative TRUS biopsy. World J Urol 2012;30:213-218 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0675-2
  40. Sciarra A, Panebianco V, Ciccariello M, Salciccia S, Cattarino S, Lisi D, et al. Value of magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging for detecting prostate cancer foci in men with prior negative biopsy. Clin Cancer Res 2010;16:1875-1883 https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-2195
  41. Prando A, Kurhanewicz J, Borges AP, Oliveira EM Jr, Figueiredo E. Prostatic biopsy directed with endorectal MR spectroscopic imaging findings in patients with elevated prostate specific antigen levels and prior negative biopsy findings: early experience. Radiology 2005;236:903-910 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2363040615
  42. Lee SH, Chung MS, Kim JH, Oh YT, Rha KH, Chung BH. Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in men with previously negative prostate biopsy results. J Endourol 2012;26:787-791 https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2011.0393
  43. Brock M, Eggert T, Palisaar RJ, Roghmann F, Braun K, Loppenberg B, et al. Multiparametric ultrasound of the prostate: adding contrast enhanced ultrasound to real-time elastography to detect histopathologically confirmed cancer. J Urol 2013;189:93-98 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.183
  44. Salomon G, Kollerman J, Thederan I, Chun FK, Budaus L, Schlomm T, et al. Evaluation of prostate cancer detection with ultrasound real-time elastography: a comparison with step section pathological analysis after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2008;54:1354-1362 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.02.035
  45. Woo S, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH. Shear wave elastography for detection of prostate cancer: a preliminary study. Korean J Radiol 2014;15:346-355 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2014.15.3.346
  46. Testa C, Schiavina R, Lodi R, Salizzoni E, Tonon C, D'Errico A, et al. Accuracy of MRI/MRSI-based transrectal ultrasound biopsy in peripheral and transition zones of the prostate gland in patients with prior negative biopsy. NMR Biomed 2010;23:1017-1026 https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.1522

Cited by

  1. Prostate cancer detection rates of magnetic resonance imaging-guided prostate biopsy related to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score vol.35, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1874-7
  2. Transrectal real-time tissue elastography targeted biopsy coupled with peak strain index improves the detection of clinically important prostate cancer vol.14, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2017.6126
  3. Cognitive-Targeted versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Prostate Biopsy in Prostate Cancer Detection vol.11, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1159/000447216