Advertisement

MRI-Guided Prostate Biopsy

  • R. Jason Stafford
  • Stephen E. McRae
  • Kamran Ahrar
Chapter

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is rapidly being established as the modality of choice for evaluating the prostate and surrounding anatomy and for radiologically detecting prostate cancer. As is often the case for diagnostic MRI, this trend results from the integration of multiple soft-tissue contrast mechanisms, such as T2- and T1-weighted imaging and functional imaging techniques, such as diffusion, dynamic contrast enhancement, and spectroscopy. Similar to the evolution of biopsy in breast cancer, this appears to be leading to a workflow in which some patients may be better served by undergoing an MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate as opposed to a conventional multi-core, transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy. In response to this, integrated hardware and software solutions for performing MRI-guided biopsies in the prostate are being developed, validated, and commercialized. Although it is early in clinical adoption, this technology shows promise in increasing the sensitivity and positive predictive value of prostate biopsy in the future.

Keywords

Prostate Biopsy Endorectal Coil Central Gland Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guidance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Siegel R, Ward E, Brawley O, Jemal A, Cancer statistics. The impact of eliminating socioeconomic and racial disparities on premature cancer deaths. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61(4):212–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59(4):225–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tewari A, Divine G, Chang P, et al. Long-term survival in men with high grade prostate cancer: a comparison between conservative treatment, radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy–a propensity scoring approach. J Urol. 2007;177(3):911–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brawley OW, Ankerst DP, Thompson IM. Screening for prostate cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59(4):264–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boyle P, Brawley OW. Prostate cancer: current evidence weighs against population screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59(4):220–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Brawley OW. Cancer screening in the United States, 2009: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59(1):27–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb 3rd RL, et al. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1310–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1320–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Watanabe H. History and applications of transrectal sonography of the prostate. Urol Clin North Am. 1989;16(4):617–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sadeghi-Nejad H, Simmons M, Dakwar G, Dogra V. Controversies in transrectal ultrasonography and prostate biopsy. Ultrasound Q. 2006;22(3):169–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eskicorapci SY, Baydar DE, Akbal C, et al. An extended 10-core transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsy protocol improves the detection of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2004;45(4):444–8; discussion 448–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Karam JA, Shulman MJ, Benaim EA. Impact of training level of urology residents on the detection of prostate cancer on TRUS biopsy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2004;7(1):38–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Djavan B, Ravery V, Zlotta A, et al. Prospective evaluation of prostate cancer detected on biopsies 1, 2, 3 and 4: when should we stop? J Urol. 2001;166(5):1679–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gleason DF. Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol. 1992;23(3):273–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Iczkowski KA, Lucia MS. Current perspectives on Gleason grading of prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep. 2011;12(3):216–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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(1):104–9; discussion 109–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol. 1989;142(1):71–4; discussion 74–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Onur R, Littrup PJ, Pontes JE, Bianco Jr FJ. Contemporary impact of transrectal ultrasound lesions for prostate cancer detection. J Urol. 2004;172(2):512–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Heijmink SW, van Moerkerk H, Kiemeney LA, Witjes JA, Frauscher F, Barentsz JO. A comparison of the diagnostic performance of systematic versus ultrasound-guided biopsies of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(4):927–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Atalar E, Menard C. MR-guided interventions for prostate cancer. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2005;13(3):491–504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tempany C, Straus S, Hata N, Haker S. MR-guided prostate interventions. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;27(2):356–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, et al. Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology. 2011;261(1):46–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kundra V, Silverman PM, Matin SF, Choi H. Imaging in oncology from the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center: diagnosis, staging, and surveillance of prostate cancer. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(4):830–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weinreb JC, Blume JD, Coakley FV, et al. Prostate cancer: sextant localization at MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging before prostatectomy–results of ACRIN prospective multi-institutional clinicopathologic study. Radiology. 2009;251(1):122–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ahmed HU, Kirkham A, Arya M, et al. Is it time to consider a role for MRI before prostate biopsy? Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2009;6(4):197–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Qayyum A, Coakley FV, Lu Y, et al. Organ-confined prostate cancer: effect of prior transrectal biopsy on endorectal MRI and MR spectroscopic imaging. Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183(4):1079–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Huisman HJ, Engelbrecht MR, Barentsz JO. Accurate estimation of pharmacokinetic contrast-enhanced dynamic MRI parameters of the prostate. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;13(4):607–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Alonzi R, Padhani AR, Allen C. Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2007;63(3):335–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bonekamp D, Macura KJ. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of the prostate. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;19(6):273–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Franiel T, Ludemann L, Rudolph B, et al. Evaluation of normal prostate tissue, chronic prostatitis, and prostate cancer by quantitative perfusion analysis using a dynamic contrast-enhanced inversion-prepared dual-contrast gradient echo sequence. Invest Radiol. 2008;43(7):481–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ito H, Kamoi K, Yokoyama K, Yamada K, Nishimura T. Visualization of prostate cancer using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: comparison with transrectal power Doppler ultrasound. Br J Radiol. 2003;76(909):617–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kaji Y, Kurhanewicz J, Hricak H, et al. Localizing prostate cancer in the presence of postbiopsy changes on MR images: role of proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology. 1998;206(3):785–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pondman KM, Futterer JJ, ten Haken B, et al. MR-guided biopsy of the prostate: an overview of techniques and a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2008;54(3):517–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hambrock T, Somford DM, Hoeks C, 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Beyersdorff D, Winkel A, Hamm B, Lenk S, Loening SA, Taupitz M. MR imaging-guided prostate biopsy with a closed MR unit at 1.5 T: initial results. Radiology. 2005;234(2):576–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Roethke M, Anastasiadis AG, Lichy M, 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. 2011;30(2):213–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Heijmink SW, Futterer JJ, Strum SS, et al. State-of-the-art uroradiologic imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Acta Oncol. 2011;50 Suppl 1:25–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tanimoto A, Nakashima J, Kohno H, Shinmoto H, Kuribayashi S. Prostate cancer screening: the clinical value of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic MR imaging in combination with T2-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;25(1):146–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schoenfield L, Jones JS, Zippe CD, et al. The incidence of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and atypical glands suspicious for carcinoma on first-time saturation needle biopsy, and the subsequent risk of cancer. BJU Int. 2007;99(4):770–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wills ML, Hamper UM, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Incidence of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in sextant needle biopsy specimens. Urology. 1997;49(3):367–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Djavan B, Milani S, Remzi M. Prostate biopsy: who, how and when. An update. Can J Urol. 2005;12:44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lujan M, Paez A, Santonja C, Pascual T, Fernandez I, Berenguer A. Prostate cancer detection and tumor characteristics in men with multiple biopsy sessions. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2004;7(3):238–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Eichler K, Hempel S, Wilby J, Myers L, Bachmann LM, Kleijnen J. Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J Urol. 2006;175(5):1605–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jones JS. Saturation biopsy for detecting and characterizing prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2007;99(6):1340–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Djavan B, Fong YK, Ravery V, et al. Are repeat biopsies required in men with PSA levels < or =4 ng/ml? A Multiinstitutional Prospective European Study. Eur Urol. 2005;47(1):38–44; discussion 44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mian BM, Lehr DJ, Moore CK, et al. Role of prostate biopsy schemes in accurate prediction of Gleason scores. Urology. 2006;67(2):379–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Jones JS, Patel A, Schoenfield L, Rabets JC, Zippe CD, Magi-Galluzzi C. Saturation technique does not improve cancer detection as an initial prostate biopsy strategy. J Urol. 2006;175(2):485–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Pepe P, Aragona F. Saturation prostate needle biopsy and prostate cancer detection at initial and repeat evaluation. Urology. 2007;70(6):1131–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Galfano A, Novara G, Iafrate M, et al. Prostate biopsy: the transperineal approach. EAU-EBU Update Series. 2007;5(6):241–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Berger AP, Gozzi C, Steiner H, et al. Complication rate of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: a comparison among 3 protocols with 6, 10 and 15 cores. J Urol. 2004;171(4):1478–80; discussion 1480–1471.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Naughton CK, Miller DC, Yan Y. Impact of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy on quality of life: a prospective randomized trial comparing 6 versus 12 cores. J Urol. 2001;165(1):100–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Naughton CK, Ornstein DK, Smith DS, Catalona WJ. Pain and morbidity of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: a prospective randomized trial of 6 versus 12 cores. J Urol. 2000;163(1):168–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    D'Amico AV, Tempany CM, Cormack R, et al. Transperineal magnetic resonance image guided prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2000;164(2):385–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hata N, Jinzaki M, Kacher D, et al. MR imaging-guided prostate biopsy with surgical navigation software: device validation and feasibility. Radiology. 2001;220(1):263–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Susil RC, Menard C, Krieger A, et al. Transrectal prostate biopsy and fiducial marker placement in a standard 1.5T magnetic resonance imaging scanner. J Urol. 2006;175(1):113–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Djavan B, Margreiter M. Biopsy standards for detection of prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2007;25(1):11–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Maan Z, Cutting CW, Patel U, et al. Morbidity of transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsies in patients after the continued use of low-dose aspirin. BJU Int. 2003;91(9):798–800.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Giannarini G, Mogorovich A, Valent F, et al. Continuing or discontinuing low-dose aspirin before transrectal prostate biopsy: results of a prospective randomized trial. Urology. 2007;70(3):501–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Halliwell OT, Yadegafar G, Lane C, Dewbury KC. Transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate: aspirin increases the incidence of minor bleeding complications. Clin Radiol. 2008;63(5):557–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Yakar D, Hambrock T, Hoeks C, Barentsz JO, Futterer JJ. Magnetic resonance-guided biopsy of the prostate: feasibility, technique, and clinical applications. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;19(6):291–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Engelhard K, Hollenbach HP, Kiefer B, Winkel A, Goeb K, Engehausen D. Prostate biopsy in the supine position in a standard 1.5-T scanner under real time MR-imaging control using a MR-compatible endorectal biopsy device. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(6):1237–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Anastasiadis AG, Lichy MP, Nagele U, et al. MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate increases diagnostic performance in men with elevated or increasing PSA levels after previous negative TRUS biopsies. Eur Urol. 2006;50(4):738–48; discussion 748–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Hambrock T, Hoeks C, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Zangos S, Eichler K, Engelmann K, et al. MR-guided transgluteal biopsies with an open low-field system in patients with clinically suspected prostate cancer: technique and preliminary results. Eur Radiol. 2005;15(1):174–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Emiliozzi P, Longhi S, Scarpone P, Pansadoro A, DePaula F, Pansadoro V. The value of a single biopsy with 12 transperineal cores for detecting prostate cancer in patients with elevated prostate specific antigen. J Urol. 2001;166(3):845–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Kawakami S, Kihara K, Fujii Y, Masuda H, Kobayashi T, Kageyama Y. Transrectal ultrasound-guided transperineal 14-core systematic biopsy detects apico-anterior cancer foci of T1c prostate cancer. Int J Urol. 2004;11(8):613–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Furuno T, Demura T, Kaneta T, et al. Difference of cancer core distribution between first and repeat biopsy: In patients diagnosed by extensive transperineal ultrasound guided template prostate biopsy. Prostate. 2004;58(1):76–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Igel TC, Knight MK, Young PR, et al. Systematic transperineal ultrasound guided template biopsy of the prostate in patients at high risk. J Urol. 2001;165(5):1575–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Merrick GS, Gutman S, Andreini H, et al. Prostate cancer distribution in patients diagnosed by transperineal template-guided saturation biopsy. Eur Urol. 2007;52(3):715–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Taira AV, Merrick GS, Galbreath RW, et al. Performance of transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy in detecting prostate cancer in the initial and repeat biopsy setting. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2009;13(1):71–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Lagerburg V, Moerland MA, Lagendijk JJ, Battermann JJ. Measurement of prostate rotation during insertion of needles for brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2005;77(3):318–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Cormack RA, D'Amico AV, Hata N, Silverman S, Weinstein M, Tempany CM. Feasibility of transperineal prostate biopsy under interventional magnetic resonance guidance. Urology. 2000;56(4):663–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Susil RC, Camphausen K, Choyke P, et al. System for prostate brachytherapy and biopsy in a standard 1.5 T MRI scanner. Magn Reson Med. 2004;52(3):683–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Cantwell CP, Hahn PF, Gervais DA, Mueller PR. Prostate biopsy after ano-rectal resection: value of CT-guided trans-gluteal biopsy. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(4):738–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Zangos S, Melzer A, Eichler K, et al. MR-compatible Assistance System for Biopsy in a High-Field-Strength System: Initial Results in Patients with Suspicious Prostate Lesions. Radiology. 2011;1:2011.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Zangos S, Herzog C, Eichler K, et al. MR-compatible assistance system for punction in a high-field system: device and feasibility of transgluteal biopsies of the prostate gland. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(4):1118–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Macura KJ, Stoianovici D. Advancements in magnetic resonance-guided robotic interventions in the prostate. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;19(6):297–304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Mozer PC, Partin AW, Stoianovici D. Robotic image-guided needle interventions of the prostate. Rev Urol. 2009;11(1):7–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Franiel T, Stephan C, Erbersdobler A, 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(1):162–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Jason Stafford
    • 1
  • Stephen E. McRae
    • 2
    • 3
  • Kamran Ahrar
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Imaging PhysicsThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Interventional RadiologyThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Division of Diagnostic ImagingThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Interventional Radiology, Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular SurgeryThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations