World Journal of Urology

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 269–275 | Cite as

Refining the risk-stratification of transrectal biopsy-detected prostate cancer by elastic fusion registration transperineal biopsies

  • Bertrand Covin
  • Mathieu Roumiguié
  • Marie-Laure Quintyn-Ranty
  • Pierre Graff
  • Jonathan Khalifa
  • Richard Aziza
  • Guillaume Ploussard
  • Daniel Portalez
  • Bernard MalavaudEmail author
Topic Paper



To evaluate image-guided Transperineal Elastic-Registration biopsy (TPER-B) in the risk-stratification of low–intermediate risk prostate cancer detected by Transrectal-ultrasound biopsy (TRUS-B) when estimates of cancer grade and volume discorded with multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI).


All patients referred for active surveillance or organ-conservative management were collegially reviewed for consistency between TRUS-B results and MRI. Image-guided TPER-B of the index target (IT) defined as the largest Prostate Imaging-Reporting Data System-v2 ≥ 3 abnormality was organized for discordant cases. Pathology reported Gleason grade, maximum cancer core length (MCCL) and total CCL (TCCL).


Of 237 prostate cancer patients (1–4/2018), 30 were required TPER-B for risk-stratification. Eight cores were obtained [Median and IQR: 8 (6–9)] including six (IQR: 4–6) in the IT. TPER-B of the IT yielded longer MCCL [Mean and (95%CI): 6.9 (5.0–8.8) vs. 2.6 mm (1.9–3.3), p < 0.0001] and TCCL [19.7 (11.6–27.8) vs. 3.6 mm (2.6–4.5), p = 0.0002] than TRUS-B of the gland. On TPER-B cores, longer MCCL [Mean and (95%CI): 8.7 mm (6.7–10.7) vs. 4.1 mm (0.6–7.6), p = 0.002] were measured in Gleason score-7 cancers. TPER-B cores upgraded 13/30 (43.3%) patients. 14/30 (46.7%) met University College London-definition 1 and 18/30 (60.0%) definition 2, which correlate with clinically significant cancers > 0.5 mL and > 0.2 mL, respectively. 7/16 (43.8%) patients under active surveillance were re-allocated toward prostatectomy (n = 5) or radiation therapy (n = 2). In 14 patients not yet assigned, TPER-B risk-stratification spurred the selection (13/14, 92.9%) of treatments with curative intent.


Image-guided TPER-B of the index target provided more cancer material for pathology. Subsequent re-evaluation of cancer volume and grade switched a majority of patients towards higher-risk groups and treatments with curative intent.


Prostatic Neoplasms Endoscopy Diagnostic imaging Biopsy 



Ms. Aurélie Chambon for dedicated management of the Prostate Cancer multidisciplinary meeting and Ms. Falek Zaidi (MSc.) for her assistance in data collection and pathology.

Author contributions

BC: data collection, and manuscript review; MR: data collection, data analysis, and manuscript review. M-LQ-R: data collection, and manuscript review. PG: data analysis, and manuscript review. JK: manuscript review. RA: data collection, and manuscript review. GP: data analysis, and manuscript review. DP: Study development, data analysis, and manuscript review. BM: Study development, data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants

The study was approved by institutional ethics committee and performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, Fossati N, Gross T, Henry AM, Joniau S, Lam TB, Mason MD, Matveev VB, Moldovan PC, van den Bergh RCN, Van den Broeck T, Van den Poel HG, Van den Kwast TH, Rouviere O, Schoots IG, Wiegel T, Cornford P (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 71(4):618–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Haese A, Chaudhari M, Miller MC, Epstein JI, Huland H, Palisaar J, Graefen M, Hammerer P, Poole EC, O’Dowd GJ, Partin AW, Veltri RW (2003) Quantitative biopsy pathology for the prediction of pathologically organ-confined prostate carcinoma: a multiinstitutional validation study. Cancer 97(4):969–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gnanapragasam VJ, Lophatananon A, Wright KA, Muir KR, Gavin A, Greenberg DC (2016) Improving clinical risk stratification at diagnosis in primary prostate cancer: a prognostic modelling study. PLoS Med 13(8):e1002063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, Briganti A, Budaus L, Hellawell G, Hindley RG, Roobol MJ, Eggener S, Ghei M, Villers A, Bladou F, Villeirs GM, Virdi J, Boxler S, Robert G, Singh PB, Venderink W, Hadaschik BA, Ruffion A, Hu JC, Margolis D, Crouzet S, Klotz L, Taneja SS, Pinto P, Gill I, Allen C, Giganti F, Freeman A, Morris S, Punwani S, Williams NR, Brew-Graves C, Deeks J, Takwoingi Y, Emberton M, Moore CM, Collaborators PSG (2018) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 378(19):1767–1777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baco E, Ukimura O, Rud E, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A, Aron M, Palmer S, Matsugasumi T, Marien A, Bernhard JC, Rewcastle JC, Eggesbo HB, Gill IS (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging-transectal ultrasound image-fusion biopsies accurately characterize the index tumor: correlation with step-sectioned radical prostatectomy specimens in 135 patients. Eur Urol 67(4):787–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Futterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P, Emberton M, Giannarini G, Kirkham A, Taneja SS, Thoeny H, Villeirs G, Villers A (2015) Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol 68(6):1045–1053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, Barentsz JO, Carey B, Futterer JJ, Heijmink SW, Hoskin PJ, Kirkham A, Padhani AR, Persad R, Puech P, Punwani S, Sohaib AS, Tombal B, Villers A, van der Meulen J, Emberton M (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 59(4):477–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, Margolis D, Schnall MD, Shtern F, Tempany CM, Thoeny HC, Verma S (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging—reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69(1):16–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moch H, Humphrey PA, Ulbright TM, Reuter VE (2016) WHO classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs. 4th ed, vol 8. In: Moch H, Ulbright TM (eds) IARC WHO Classification of Tumours, No 8Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Epstein JI, Amin MB, Reuter VE, Humphrey PA (2017) Contemporary gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: an update with discussion on practical issues to implement the 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 41(4):e1–e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van der Kwast TH, Roobol MJ (2013) Defining the threshold for significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol 10(8):473–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ahmed HU, Hu Y, Carter T, Arumainayagam N, Lecornet E, Freeman A, Hawkes D, Barratt DC, Emberton M (2011) Characterizing clinically significant prostate cancer using template prostate mapping biopsy. J Urol 186(2):458–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shaish H, Kang SK, Rosenkrantz AB (2017) The utility of quantitative ADC values for differentiating high-risk from low-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Abdom Radiol (NY) 42(1):260–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jyoti R, Jina NH, Haxhimolla HZ (2017) In-gantry MRI guided prostate biopsy diagnosis of prostatitis and its relationship with PIRADS V. 2 based score. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 61(2):212–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cornud F, Roumiguie M, Barry de Longchamps N, Ploussard G, Bruguiere E, Portalez D, Malavaud B (2018) Precision matters in MR Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsies: evidence from a Prospective Study of Cognitive and Elastic Fusion Registration Transrectal Biopsies. Radiology 287(2):534–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nevoux P, Ouzzane A, Ahmed HU, Emberton M, Montironi R, Presti JC Jr, Villers A (2012) Quantitative tissue analyses of prostate cancer foci in an unselected cystoprostatectomy series. BJU Int 110(4):517–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McNeal JE (1981) The zonal anatomy of the prostate. Prostate 2(1):35–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Crawford ED, Rove KO, Barqawi AB, Maroni PD, Werahera PN, Baer CA, Koul HK, Rove CA, Lucia MS, La Rosa FG (2013) Clinical-pathologic correlation between transperineal mapping biopsies of the prostate and three-dimensional reconstruction of prostatectomy specimens. Prostate 73(7):778–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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 (2013) Transperineal magnetic resonance image targeted prostate biopsy versus transperineal template prostate biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. J Urol 189(3):860–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bass EJ, Donaldson IA, Freeman A, Jameson C, Punwani S, Moore C, Arya M, Emberton M, Ahmed HU (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging targeted transperineal prostate biopsy: a local anaesthetic approach. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 20(3):311–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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 (2015) Comparative analysis of transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy with magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion guidance. J Urol 193(1):87–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cornud F, Brolis L, Delongchamps NB, Portalez D, Malavaud B, Renard-Penna R, Mozer P (2013) TRUS-MRI image registration: a paradigm shift in the diagnosis of significant prostate cancer. Abdom Imaging 38(6):1447–1463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Baumann M, Mozer P, Daanen V, Troccaz J (2012) Prostate biopsy tracking with deformation estimation. Med Image Anal 16(3):562–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McKenney JK, Simko J, Bonham M, True LD, Troyer D, Hawley S, Newcomb LF, Fazli L, Kunju LP, Nicolas MM, Vakar-Lopez F, Zhang X, Carroll PR, Brooks JD (2011) The potential impact of reproducibility of Gleason grading in men with early stage prostate cancer managed by active surveillance: a multi-institutional study. J Urol 186(2):465–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Valerio M, Donaldson I, Emberton M, Ehdaie B, Hadaschik BA, Marks LS, Mozer P, Rastinehad AR, Ahmed HU (2015) Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy: a systematic review. Eur Urol 68(1):8–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Allsbrook WC Jr, Mangold KA, Johnson MH, Lane RB, Lane CG, Epstein JI (2001) Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. Hum Pathol 32(1):81–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bertrand Covin
    • 1
  • Mathieu Roumiguié
    • 1
  • Marie-Laure Quintyn-Ranty
    • 2
  • Pierre Graff
    • 3
  • Jonathan Khalifa
    • 3
  • Richard Aziza
    • 4
  • Guillaume Ploussard
    • 1
  • Daniel Portalez
    • 4
  • Bernard Malavaud
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of UrologyInstitut Universitaire du CancerToulouseFrance
  2. 2.Department of PathologyInstitut Universitaire du CancerToulouseFrance
  3. 3.Department of Radiation OncologyInstitut Universitaire du CancerToulouseFrance
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyInstitut Universitaire du CancerToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations