MRI ultrasound fusion biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer

Česká verzia

Authors: Jiří Stejskal ¹; Vanda Jašková ¹; Adam Pavličko ²; Jana Votrubová ²; Radoslav Matěj ³; Miroslav Záleský ^1,4; Roman Zachoval ^1,4,5
Authors place of work: Urologické oddělení, Thomayerova nemocnice, Praha ¹; Radiodiagnostické oddělení, Thomayerova nemocnice, Praha ²; Oddělení patologie, Thomayerova nemocnice, Praha ³; 1. lékařská fakulta, Univerzita Karlova, Praha ⁴; 3. lékařská fakulta, Univerzita Karlova, Praha ⁵
Published in the journal: Ces Urol 2018; 22(2): 87-98
Category: Review article

Summary

A literature review of techniques, results and the current role of MRI/US fusion biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer

The detection of prostate cancer still requires histological proof, usually obtained through pros‑ tate biopsy While standard systematic biopsy has a low detection rate and carries a risk of serious adverse events, MRI ultrasound fusion biopsy tech‑ nology offers to overcome these shortcommings In recent years, many studies concerning magnetic resonance of the prostate were published, often with conflicting outcomes

In this paper we present a literature review pertaining to the limitations of current prostate biopsy methods, magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate and its use in targeting prostate biopsies with the goal to assess MRI’s role in the current diagnostic algorithm of prostate cancer

Based on pubished studies a conclusion can be made that MRI‑guided prostate biopsy detects more clinically significant cancer than systematic biopsy using fewer cores, particularly in the repeat biopsy subgroup Some prostate cancer is not de‑ tected by MRI, as such systematic biopsies should still be obtained when performing an MRI‑guided biopsy Given the heterogeneity of available studies further investigation is needed with large multi‑ institutional trials

KEY WORDS:

Prostate, cancer, biopsy, MRI, fusion

Zdroje

1. Shariat SF, Roehrborn CG. Using biopsy to detect prostate cancer. Rev Urol 2008; 10(4): 262–280.

2. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU‑ESTRO‑SIOG Guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2017; 71(4): 618–629.

3. van de Ven WJM, Sedelaar JPM, van der Leest MMG, et al. Visibility of prostate cancer on transrectal ultrasound during fusion with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for biopsy. Clin Imaging 2016; 40(4): 745–750.

4. Sedelaar JP, Vijverberg PL, De Reijke TM, et al. Transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: state of the art and perspectives. Eur Urol 2001; 40(3): 275–284.

5. Smeenge M, Barentsz J, Cosgrove D, et al. Role of transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) in focal therapy of prostate cancer: report from a consensus panel. BJU Int 2012; 110(7): 942–948.

6. Čapoun O, Sobotka R, Macek P, Hanuš T. Prediktivní parametry záchytu karcinomu prostaty v saturační biopsii prostaty. Ces Urol 2012; 16(3): 163–170.

7. Morgan E, Drummond FJ, Coyle C, Sharp L, Gavin A. Original article: physical after effects in men undergoing prostate biopsy in routine clinical practice: results from the PiCTure study. Urologic Oncology Seminars and Original Investigations (Internet) 2017;Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login. aspx?authtype=shib & custid=s1240919 & profile=eds

8. Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 2013; 64(6): 876–892.

9. Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI, Ricker W, Schaeffer EM. Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER‑Medicare. J Urol 2011; 186(5): 1830–1834.

10. Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI, Ricker W, Schaeffer EM. Is repeat prostate biopsy associated with a greater risk of hospitalization? Data from SEER‑Medicare. J Urol 2013; 189(3): 867–870.

11. Zisman A, Leibovici D, Kleinmann J, Siegel YI, Lindner A. The impact of prostate biopsy on patient well‑being: a prospective study of pain, anxiety and erectile dysfunction. J Urol 2001; 165(2): 445–454.

12. Wade J, Rosario DJ, Macefield RC, et al. Psychological impact of prostate biopsy: physical symptoms, anxiety, and depression. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31(33): 4235–4241.

13. Bárta J, Rýznarová Z, Klézl P, et al. Postavení magnetické rezonance a magnetické rezonanční spektroskopie při detekci karcinomu prostaty. Ces Uro 2010; 14(3): 186–196.

14. Yoo S, Kim JK, Jeong IG. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: a review and update for urologists. Korean J Urol 2015; 56(7): 487–497.

15. Bomers JGR, Barentsz JO. Standardization of multiparametric prostate MR imaging using PI‑RADS. Biomed Res Int 2014; 2014: 431680.

16. Shah ZK, Elias SN, Abaza R, et al. Performance comparison of 1.5-T endorectal coil MRI with 3.0-T nonendorectal coil MRI in patients with prostate cancer. Acad Radiol 2015; 22(4): 467–474.

17. Park BK, Kim B, Kim CK, Lee HM, Kwon GY. Comparison of phased‑array 3.0-T and endorectal 1.5-T magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of local staging accuracy for prostate cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2007; 31(4): 534–538.

18. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI‑RADS Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 2016; 69(1): 16–40.

19. Turkbey B, Merino MJ, Gallardo EC, et al. Comparison of endorectal coil and nonendorectal coil T2W and diffusion‑weighted MRI at 3 Tesla for localizing prostate cancer: correlation with whole‑mount histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014; 39(6): 1443–1448.

20. Thompson JE, van Leeuwen PJ, Moses D, et al. The diagnostic performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect significant prostate cancer. J Urol 2016; 195(5): 1428–1435.

21. Fütterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P, et al. Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 2015; 68(6): 1045–1053.

22. Simmons LAM, Kanthabalan A, Arya M, et al. The PICTURE study: diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI in men requiring a repeat prostate biopsy. Br J Cancer 2017; 116(9): 1159–1165.

23. Ahmed HU, El‑Shater Bosaily A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi‑parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017; 389(10071): 815–822.

24. Turkbey B, Pinto PA, Mani H, et al. Prostate cancer: value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection-- histopathologic correlation. Radiology 2010; 255(1): 89–99.

25. Feng TS, Sharif‑Afshar AR, Smith SC, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging localizes established extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2015; 33(3): 109.e15–22.

26. Turkbey B, Choyke PL. PIRADS 2.0: what is new? Diagn Interv Radiol 2015; 21(5): 382–384.

27. Quentin M, Blondin D, Arsov C, et al. Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging guided in‑bore prostate biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in biopsy naïve men with elevated prostate specific antigen. J Urol 2014; 192(5): 1374–1379.

28. Felker ER, Lee‑Felker SA, Feller J, et al. In‑bore magnetic resonance‑guided transrectal biopsy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2016; 41(5): 954–962.

29. Schimmöller L, Blondin D, Arsov C, et al. MRI‑guided in‑bore biopsy: differences between prostate cancer detection and localization in primary and secondary biopsy settings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016; 206(1): 92–99.

30. Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Quentin M, et al. Comparison of patient comfort between MR‑guided in‑bore and MRI/ultrasound fusion‑guided prostate biopsies within a prospective randomized trial. World J Urol 2016; 34(2): 215–220.

31. Haffner J, Lemaitre L, Puech P, 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): E171–178.

32. Puech P, Rouvière O, Renard‑Penna R, 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(2): 461–469.

33. Lee DJ, Recabal P, Sjoberg DD, et al. Comparative effectiveness of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging ultrasound fusion software and visual targeting: a prospective study. J Urol 2016; 196(3): 697–702.

34. Oberlin DT, Casalino DD, Miller FH, et al. Diagnostic value of guided biopsies: fusion and cognitive‑registration magnetic resonance imaging versus conventional ultrasound biopsy of the prostate. Urology 2016; 92: 75–79.

35. Oderda M, Faletti R, Battisti G, et al. Prostate cancer detection rate with koelis fusion biopsies versus cognitive biopsies: a comparative study. Urol Int 2016; 97(2): 230–237.

36. 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(2): 493–499.

37. 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(2): 343–351.

38. Kwak JT, Hong CW, Pinto PA, et al. Is visual registration equivalent to semiautomated registration in prostate biopsy? Biomed Res Int 2015; 2015: 394742.

39. Radtke JP, Teber D, Hohenfellner M, Hadaschik BA. The current and future role of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer detection and management. Transl Androl Urol 2015; 4(3): 326–341.

40. Venderink W, de Rooij M, Sedelaar JPM, Huisman HJ, Fütterer JJ. Elastic versus rigid image registration in magnetic resonance imaging‑transrectal ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta‑analysis. Eur Urol Focus. 2016, S2405–4569(16)30101–8.

41. Kaplan I, Oldenburg NE, Meskell P, et al. Real time MRI‑ultrasound image guided stereotactic prostate biopsy. Magn Reson Imaging 2002; 20(3): 295–299.

42. Singh AK, Kruecker J, Xu S, et al. Initial clinical experience with real‑time transrectal ultrasonography‑magnetic resonance imaging fusion‑guided prostate biopsy. BJU Int 2008; 101(7): 841–845.

43. 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(4): 525–532.

44. Le JD, Stephenson S, Brugger M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging‑ultrasound fusion biopsy for prediction of final prostate pathology. J Urol 2014; 192(5): 1367–1373. 45. Porpiglia F, DE Luca S, Passera R, et al. Multiparametric‑magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion targeted prostate biopsy improves agreement between biopsy and radical prostatectomy Gleason score. Anticancer Res 2016; 36(9): 4833–4839.

46. Borkowetz A, Platzek I, Toma M, et al. Direct comparison of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) results with final histopathology in patients with proven prostate cancer in MRI/ultrasonography‑fusion biopsy. BJU Int 2016; 118(2): 213–220.

47. Moore CM, Robertson NL, Arsanious N, et al. Image‑guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging‑derived targets: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2013; 63(1): 125–140.

48. Nelson AW, Harvey RC, Parker RA, et al. Repeat prostate biopsy strategies after initial negative biopsy: meta‑regression comparing cancer detection of transperineal, transrectal saturation and MRI guided biopsy. PLoS One 2013; 8(2): e57480.

49. Valerio M, Donaldson I, Emberton M, et al. Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging‑ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2015; 68(1): 8–19.

50. Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, et al. 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 and meta‑analysis. Eur Urol 2015; 68(3): 438–450.

51. Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, Hooft L, et al. Comparing three different techniques for magnetic resonance imaging‑targeted prostate biopsies: a systematic review of in‑bore versus magnetic resonance imaging‑transrectal ultrasound fusion versus cognitive registration. Is there a preferred technique? Eur Urol (Internet) 2016; Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016. 07. 041

52. Bratan F, Niaf E, Melodelima C, et al. Influence of imaging and histological factors on prostate cancer detection and localisation on multiparametric MRI: a prospective study. Eur Radiol 2013; 23(7): 2019–2029.

53. Puech P, Villers A, Ouzzane A, Lemaitre L. Prostate cancer: diagnosis, parametric imaging and standardized report. Diagn Interv Imaging (Internet). 2014 Jul; 95(7–8): 743–752. Available from: http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.diii.2014. 06. 012