Advertisement

World Journal of Urology

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 235–241 | Cite as

Follow-up of negative MRI-targeted prostate biopsies: when are we missing cancer?

  • Samuel A. Gold
  • Graham R. Hale
  • Jonathan B. Bloom
  • Clayton P. Smith
  • Kareem N. Rayn
  • Vladimir Valera
  • Bradford J. Wood
  • Peter L. Choyke
  • Baris Turkbey
  • Peter A. PintoEmail author
Topic Paper

Abstract

Introduction

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has improved clinicians’ ability to detect clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). Combining or fusing these images with the real-time imaging of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) allows urologists to better sample lesions with a targeted biopsy (Tbx) leading to the detection of greater rates of csPCa and decreased rates of low-risk PCa. In this review, we evaluate the technical aspects of the mpMRI-guided Tbx procedure to identify possible sources of error and provide clinical context to a negative Tbx.

Methods

A literature search was conducted of possible reasons for false-negative TBx. This includes discussion on false-positive mpMRI findings, termed “PCa mimics,” that may incorrectly suggest high likelihood of csPCa as well as errors during Tbx resulting in inexact image fusion or biopsy needle placement.

Results

Despite the strong negative predictive value associated with Tbx, concerns of missed disease often remain, especially with MR-visible lesions. This raises questions about what to do next after a negative Tbx result. Potential sources of error can arise from each step in the targeted biopsy process ranging from “PCa mimics” or technical errors during mpMRI acquisition to failure to properly register MRI and TRUS images on a fusion biopsy platform to technical or anatomic limits on needle placement accuracy.

Conclusions

A better understanding of these potential pitfalls in the mpMRI-guided Tbx procedure will aid interpretation of a negative Tbx, identify areas for improving technical proficiency, and improve both physician understanding of negative Tbx and patient-management options.

Keywords

Multiparametric MRI Targeted prostate biopsy Prostate cancer Fusion prostate biopsy PIRADS 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Cancer Institute, and the Center for Interventional Oncology. NIH and Philips Healthcare have a cooperative research and development agreement. NIH and Philips share intellectual property in the field. This research was also made possible through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Medical Research Scholars Program, a public–private partnership supported jointly by the NIH and generous contributions to the Foundation for the NIH from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, Genentech, the American Association for Dental Research, the Colgate-Palmolive Company, Elsevier, alumni of student research programs, and other individual supporters via contributions to the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health.

Authors’ contributions

SA Gold: Project development, Data analysis, Manuscript writing/editing, Background research. GR Hale: Manuscript writing/editing, Background research. JB Bloom: Project development, Manuscript writing/editing, Background research. CP Smith: Data collection, Background research. KN Rayn: Background research. V Valera: Manuscript editing. BJ Wood: Project development, Manuscript editing. PL Choyke: Project development, Manuscript editing. B Turkbey: Project development, Data collection, Manuscript editing. PA Pinto: Project development, Data collection, Manuscript editing.

References

  1. 1.
    Siddiqui MM et al (2015) Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 313(4):390–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    SEER Cancer Stat Facts: Prostate Cancer. National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD. Available from: http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html
  3. 3.
    Ahmed HU et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389(10071):815–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kasivisvanathan V et al. (2018) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J MedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhang L et al (2017) A meta-analysis of use of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 (PI-RADS V2) with multiparametric MR imaging for the detection of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 27(12):5204–5214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mehralivand S et al (2017) Prospective evaluation of PI-RADS version 2 using the international society of urological pathology prostate cancer grade group system. J Urol 198(3):583–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Greer MD et al (2017) Accuracy and agreement of PIRADSv2 for prostate cancer mpMRI: a multireader study. J Magn Reson Imaging 45(2):579–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rosenkrantz AB et al (2017) Proposed adjustments to PI-RADS version 2 decision rules: impact on prostate cancer detection. Radiology 283(1):119–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaufmann S et al (2018) Prostate cancer detection in patients with prior negative biopsy undergoing cognitive-, robotic- or in-bore MRI target biopsy. World J UrolGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kratzenberg J et al (2018) Prostate cancer rates in patients with initially negative elastography-targeted biopsy vs. systematic biopsy. World J UrolGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Venderink W et al (2017) Retrospective comparison of direct in-bore magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy and fusion-guided biopsy in patients with MRI lesions which are likely or highly likely to be clinically significant prostate cancer. World J Urol 35(12):1849–1855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wysock JS et al (2014) 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 66(2):343–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kitzing YX et al (2016) Benign conditions that mimic prostate carcinoma: MR imaging features with histopathologic correlation. Radiographics 36(1):162–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Quon JS et al (2015) False positive and false negative diagnoses of prostate cancer at multi-parametric prostate MRI in active surveillance. Insights Imaging 6(4):449–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sciarra A et al (2010) Magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (1H-MRSI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance (DCE-MRI): pattern changes from inflammation to prostate cancer. Cancer Invest 28(4):424–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mohan H et al (2005) Granulomatous prostatitis—an infrequent diagnosis. Int J Urol 12(5):474–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bates A, Miles K (2017) Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET/MRI validation of MR textural analysis for detection of transition zone prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 27(12):5290–5298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    White S et al (1995) Prostate cancer: effect of postbiopsy hemorrhage on interpretation of MR images. Radiology 195(2):385–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Smith CPH, SA et al (2018) mpMRI features of PI-RADS 5 lesions with benign histopathology results. Accepted for oral presentation at SAR 2018 Annual Scientific MeetingGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Greer MD, Choyke PL, Turkbey B (2017) PI-RADSv2: how we do it. J Magn Reson Imaging 46(1):11–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tewes S et al (2015) Targeted MRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy in men with previous prostate biopsies using a novel registration software and multiparametric MRI PI-RADS scores: first results. World J Urol 33(11):1707–1714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baumann M et al (2009) Prostate biopsy assistance system with gland deformation estimation for enhanced precision. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 12(Pt 1):67–74Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ukimura O et al (2012) 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 187(3):1080–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Guo Y et al (2009) Image registration accuracy of a 3-dimensional transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy system. J Ultrasound Med 28(11):1561–1568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Puech P et al (2014) Multiparametric MRI-targeted TRUS prostate biopsies using visual registration. Biomed Res Int 2014:819360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sclaverano S et al (2009) BiopSym: a simulator for enhanced learning of ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Stud Health Technol Inform 142:301–306Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Costa DN et al (2015) MR imaging-transrectal US fusion for targeted prostate biopsies: implications for diagnosis and clinical management. Radiographics 35(3):696–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Calio B et al (2017) Changes in prostate cancer detection rate of MRI-TRUS fusion vs systematic biopsy over time: evidence of a learning curve. Prostate Cancer Prostatic DisGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stone NN et al (2017) Deflection analysis of different needle designs for prostate biopsy and focal therapy. Technol Cancer Res Treat 16(5):654–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Halstuch D et al (2018) Assessment of needle tip deflection during transrectal guided prostate biopsy: implications for targeted biopsies. J EndourolGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Scattoni V et al (2014) Random biopsy: when, how many and where to take the cores? World J Urol 32(4):859–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jiang X et al (2013) Is an initial saturation prostate biopsy scheme better than an extended scheme for detection of prostate cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 63(6):1031–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Truong M et al (2018) Multi-institutional nomogram predicting benign prostate pathology on magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion biopsy in men with a prior negative 12-core systematic biopsy. Cancer 124(2):278–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bjurlin MA et al (2017) Prediction of prostate cancer risk among men undergoing combined MRI-targeted and systematic biopsy using novel pre-biopsy nomograms that incorporate MRI findings. UrologyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samuel A. Gold
    • 1
  • Graham R. Hale
    • 1
  • Jonathan B. Bloom
    • 1
  • Clayton P. Smith
    • 2
  • Kareem N. Rayn
    • 1
  • Vladimir Valera
    • 1
  • Bradford J. Wood
    • 3
  • Peter L. Choyke
    • 2
  • Baris Turkbey
    • 2
  • Peter A. Pinto
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Urologic Oncology Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA
  2. 2.Molecular Imaging ProgramNational Cancer Institute, National Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA
  3. 3.Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of HealthBethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations