Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Prostate MRI Essentials pp 129–145Cite as

MRI-Guided In-Bore and MRI-Targeted US (Fusion) Biopsy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 983 Accesses

Abstract

Multiparametric MRI has revolutionized the imaging in the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer. Multiparametric MRI followed by MR-targeted biopsy of suspicious lesions may preclude biopsy in at least a quarter of at-risk men. Over the past 10 years, various strategies have been developed for performing MR-targeted biopsy of prostate. A direct in-bore MR-guided biopsy allows real-time MR imaging and prostate sampling while patient is lying inside MR gantry, while MR-ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy registers previously acquired MRI data with the real-time ultrasound images at the day of biopsy to simulate an MR-targeted approach. MR-ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy and in-bore MR-guided biopsy have been shown to be safe and outperform traditional systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) biopsy, with significantly higher detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and lower detection of clinically insignificant cancer. Cost-effectiveness assessments have shown both MR-based approaches to have higher quality-adjusted life-year benefits. This chapter reviews the technical aspects, the current literature, and future directions for MR-ultrasound fusion and in-bore MR-guided biopsy of prostate. While there is no consensus on the preferred MR-targeted approach for sampling prostate, each MR-targeted biopsy technique provides its advantages and disadvantages. The selection of the preferred method needs to be tailored per patient basis and considering the availability of the technique and expertise of the center.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Fine J. 20-year outcomes following conservative management of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA. 2005;293(17):2095–101.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Popiolek M, Rider JR, Andren O, Andersson SO, Holmberg L, Adami HO, et al. Natural history of early, localized prostate cancer: a final report from three decades of follow-up. Eur Urol. 2013;63(3):428–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Volkin D, Turkbey B, Hoang AN, Rais-Bahrami S, Yerram N, Walton-Diaz A, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and subsequent MRI/ultrasonography fusion-guided biopsy increase the detection of anteriorly located prostate cancers. BJU Int. 2014;114(6b):E43–E9. Pubmed Central PMCID: 5613950.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Felker ER, Lee-Felker SA, Feller J, Margolis DJ, Lu DS, Princenthal R, et al. In-bore magnetic resonance-guided transrectal biopsy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Abdom Radiol. 2016;41(5):954–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(4):746–757. Pubmed Central PMCID: 3297750.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Verma S, Thoeny HC, Tempany CM, Shtern F, et al. Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 guidelines for multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and recommendations for use. Eur Urol. 2016;69(1):41–49. Pubmed Central PMCID: 6364687.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Padhani AR, Weinreb J, Rosenkrantz AB, Villeirs G, Turkbey B, Barentsz J. Prostate imaging-reporting and data system steering committee: PI-RADS v2 status update and future directions. Eur Urol. 2019;75(3):385–396. Pubmed Central PMCID: 6292742.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Venderink W, van Luijtelaar A, van der Leest M, Barentsz JO, Jenniskens SFM, Overduin CG, et al. Multiparametric MRI and follow-up to avoid prostate biopsy in 4259 men. BJU Int. 2019;25:775–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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(10071):815–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, Hooft L, Bosch J, Reitsma HB, Barentsz JO, 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. 2017;71(4):517–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Smith JB, Popert R, Nuttall MC, Vyas L, Kinsella J, Cahill D. Transperineal sector prostate biopsies: a local anesthetic outpatient technique. Urology. 2014;83(6):1344–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rothwax JT, George AK, Wood BJ, Pinto PA. Multiparametric MRI in biopsy guidance for prostate cancer: fusion-guided. BioMed Res Int. 2014;2014:439171. Pubmed Central PMCID: 4122009.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kongnyuy M, George AK, Rastinehad AR, Pinto PA. Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy: review of technology, techniques, and outcomes. Curr Urol Rep. 2016;17(4):32. Pubmed Central PMCID: 4928379.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong H, Stamatakis L, Vourganti S, Nix J, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64(5):713–719. Pubmed Central PMCID: 6301057.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Venderink W, de Rooij M, Sedelaar JPM, Huisman HJ, Futterer JJ. Elastic versus rigid image registration in magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4(2):219–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. van den Heuvel S, Loeb S, Zhu X, Verhagen PC, Schroder FH, Bangma CH, et al. Complications of initial prostate biopsy in a European randomized screening trial. Am J Clin Exp Urol. 2013;1(1):66–71. Pubmed Central PMCID: 4219277.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Grummet JP, Weerakoon M, Huang S, Lawrentschuk N, Frydenberg M, Moon DA, et al. Sepsis and ‘superbugs’: should we favour the transperineal over the transrectal approach for prostate biopsy? BJU Int. 2014;114(3):384–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Huang H, Wang W, Lin T, Zhang Q, Zhao X, Lian H, et al. Comparison of the complications of traditional 12 cores transrectal prostate biopsy with image fusion guided transperineal prostate biopsy. BMC Urol. 2016;16(1):68. Pubmed Central PMCID: 5114768.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Shoji S. Magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion image-guided prostate biopsy: current status of the cancer detection and the prospects of tailor-made medicine of the prostate cancer. Investig Clin Urol. 2019;60(1):4–13. Pubmed Central PMCID: 6318202.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Brown AM, Elbuluk O, Mertan F, Sankineni S, Margolis DJ, Wood BJ, et al. Recent advances in image-guided targeted prostate biopsy. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40(6):1788–99.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Singh AK, Kruecker J, Xu S, Glossop N, Guion P, Ullman K, et al. Initial clinical experience with real-time transrectal ultrasonography-magnetic resonance imaging fusion-guided prostate biopsy. BJU Int. 2008;101(7):841–845. Pubmed Central PMCID: 2621260.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 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(4):390–397. Pubmed Central PMCID: 4572575.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 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(1):86–91. Pubmed Central PMCID: 3561472.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 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(3):1080–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mozer P, Roupret M, Le Cossec C, Granger B, Comperat E, de Gorski A, et al. First round of targeted biopsies using magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion compared with conventional transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsies for the diagnosis of localised prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2015;115(1):50–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Shoji S, Hiraiwa S, Ogawa T, Kawakami M, Nakano M, Hashida K, et al. Accuracy of real-time magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion image-guided transperineal target biopsy with needle tracking with a mechanical position-encoded stepper in detecting significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men. Int J Urol. 2017;24(4):288–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Radtke JP, Schwab C, Wolf MB, Freitag MT, Alt CD, Kesch C, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI-Transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy for index tumor detection: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimen. Eur Urol. 2016;70(5):846–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Koelis Academy. Available from: https://koelis.academy/. 28 Sep 2019.

  29. Wu J, Ji A, Xie B, Wang X, Zhu Y, Wang J, et al. Is magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy better than systematic prostate biopsy? An updated meta- and trial sequential analysis. Oncotarget. 2015;6(41):43571–43580. Pubmed Central PMCID: 4791251.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Elkhoury FF, Felker ER, Kwan L, Sisk AE, Delfin M, Natarajan S, et al. Comparison of targeted vs systematic prostate biopsy in men who are biopsy naive: the prospective assessment of image registration in the diagnosis of prostate Cancer (PAIREDCAP) study. JAMA Surg. 2019;12. Pubmed Central PMCID: 6563598.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hu JC, Chang E, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, Macairan M, Lieu P, et al. Targeted prostate biopsy in select men for active surveillance: do the Epstein criteria still apply? J Urol. 2014;192(2):385–390. Pubmed Central PMCID: 4129939.

    Google Scholar 

  32. 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 US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy--prospective multicenter study. Radiology. 2013;268(2):461–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 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(1):8–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Puech P, Ouzzane A, Gaillard V, Betrouni N, Renard B, Villers A, et al. Multiparametric MRI-targeted TRUS prostate biopsies using visual registration. BioMed Res Int. 2014;2014:819360. Pubmed Central PMCID: 4266999.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Giganti F, Moore CM. A critical comparison of techniques for MRI-targeted biopsy of the prostate. Trans Androl Urol. 2017;6(3):432–443. Pubmed Central PMCID: 5503959.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Valerio M, McCartan N, Freeman A, Punwani S, Emberton M, Ahmed HU. Visually directed vs. software-based targeted biopsy compared to transperineal template mapping biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Urologic Oncol. 2015;33(10):424 e9–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Oberlin DT, Casalino DD, Miller FH, Matulewicz RS, Perry KT, Nadler RB, 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. Pubmed Central PMCID: 4882086.

    Google Scholar 

  38. 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(2):493–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Futterer JJ, Barentsz JO. MRI-guided and robotic-assisted prostate biopsy. Curr Opin Urol. 2012;22(4):316–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Overduin CG, Futterer JJ, Barentsz JO. MRI-guided biopsy for prostate cancer detection: a systematic review of current clinical results. Curr Urol Rep. 2013;14(3):209–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Tan N, Lin WC, Khoshnoodi P, Asvadi NH, Yoshida J, Margolis DJ, et al. In-bore 3-T MR-guided Transrectal targeted prostate biopsy: prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2-based diagnostic performance for detection of prostate Cancer. Radiology. 2017;283(1):130–139. Pubmed Central PMCID: 5375629.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Pokorny MR, de Rooij M, Duncan E, Schroder FH, Parkinson R, Barentsz JO, et al. Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. Eur Urol. 2014;66(1):22–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Pokorny M, Kua B, Esler R, Yaxley J, Samaratunga H, Dunglison N, et al. MRI-guided in-bore biopsy for prostate cancer: what does the evidence say? A case series of 554 patients and a review of the current literature. World J Urol. 2019;37(7):1263–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Wang Y, Zhu J, Qin Z, Wang Y, Chen C, Wang Y, et al. Optimal biopsy strategy for prostate cancer detection by performing a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Cancer. 2018;9(13):2237–2248. Pubmed Central PMCID: 6036722.

    Google Scholar 

  45. van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israel B, Hendriks R, Padhani AR, Hoogenboom M, et al. Head-to-head comparison of Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naive men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective Multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol. 2019;75(4):570–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 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(1):177–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 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(2):520–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Quentin M, Blondin D, Arsov C, Schimmoller L, Hiester A, Godehardt E, et al. Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging guided in-bore prostate biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in biopsy naive men with elevated prostate specific antigen. J Urol. 2014;192(5):1374–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Friedl A, Schneeweiss J, Sevcenco S, Eredics K, Kunit T, Susani M, et al. In-bore 3.0-T Magnetic Resonance Imaging-guided Transrectal Targeted Prostate Biopsy in a Repeat Biopsy Population: Diagnostic Performance, Complications, and Learning Curve. Urology. 2018;114:139–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Gaziev G, Wadhwa K, Barrett T, Koo BC, Gallagher FA, Serrao E, et al. Defining the learning curve for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate using MRI-transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) fusion-guided transperineal prostate biopsies as a validation tool. BJU Int. 2016;117(1):80–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Wegelin O, Exterkate L, van der Leest M, Kummer JA, Vreuls W, de Bruin PC, et al. The FUTURE trial: a Multicenter randomised controlled trial on target biopsy techniques based on magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate Cancer in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol. 2019;75(4):582–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Blondin D, Quentin M, Hiester A, Godehardt E, et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided in-bore biopsy to MRI-ultrasound fusion and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol. 2015;68(4):713–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Costa DN, Goldberg K, Leon AD, Lotan Y, Xi Y, Aziz M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-guided in-bore and magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion targeted prostate biopsies: an adjusted comparison of clinically significant prostate Cancer detection rate. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019;2(4):397–404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Pahwa S, Schiltz NK, Ponsky LE, Lu Z, Griswold MA, Gulani V. Cost-effectiveness of MR imaging-guided strategies for detection of prostate Cancer in biopsy-naive men. Radiology. 2017;285(1):157–166. Pubmed Central PMCID: 5621719.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Venderink W, Govers TM, de Rooij M, Futterer JJ, Sedelaar JPM. Cost-effectiveness comparison of imaging-guided prostate biopsy techniques: systematic Transrectal ultrasound, direct in-bore MRI, and image fusion. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(5):1058–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, Department of Radiology: Abdominal Imaging and Cross Sectional IR, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Melina Hosseiny & Steven S. Raman

Authors
  1. Melina Hosseiny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steven S. Raman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven S. Raman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    Temel Tirkes

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hosseiny, M., Raman, S.S. (2020). MRI-Guided In-Bore and MRI-Targeted US (Fusion) Biopsy. In: Tirkes, T. (eds) Prostate MRI Essentials. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45935-2_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45935-2_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-45934-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-45935-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation