Does magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy improve prostate cancer detection? A comparison of systematic, cognitive fusion and ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy

Performance of cognitive vs. image-guided fusion biopsy for detection of overall and clinically significant prostate cancer in a multiethnic population

PURPOSE

Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy remains the most used method for the detection of prostate cancer. We recently reported that detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (cs-CaP) using image-guided fusion biopsies (IGFB) varied by race/ethnicity, which calls for further comparison between cognitive fusion biopsy (CFB) and IGFB among non-Hispanic black and Hispanic populations. Therefore, the aim of our study is to compare the rates of detection of cs-CaP and overall CaP by CFB and IGFB in a multiethnic community.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional review of men who underwent MRI-transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy at our diverse, urban academic medical center. Agreement and discordance between fusion biopsies and systematic biopsies for detection of cs-CaP and overall CaP were determined using Kappa statistics. Univariate and multivariate mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to find associations between fusion modalities and prostate cancer detection.

RESULTS

In total, 710 men underwent fusion prostate biopsies between December 2015 and June 2021. Upon univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis, there was no significant association between IGFB vs. CFB and risk of overall CaP (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.36-1.21, P = 0.18) or cs-CaP (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.30-1.08, P = 0.09). We found moderate agreement between fusion and systematic biopsies for both CFB (κ = 0.56) and IGFB (κ = 0.52) in cs-CaP.

CONCLUSIONS

CFB and IGFB offer similar detection rates of cs-CaP in a multiethnic population. CFB represents an effective and accessible means of accurately diagnosing prostate cancer.

Targeted multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound-guided (mpMRI/TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy versus systematic random prostate biopsy: A comparative real-life study

BACKGROUND

Patients with suspected prostate cancer usually undergo transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) systematic biopsy, which can miss relevant prostate cancers and lead to overtreatment.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to evaluate the detection rate for prostate cancer in MR-guided targeted biopsy (TB) and systematic biopsy (SB) in comparison with mpMRI of the prostate.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Three hundred and eight men who underwent mpMRI due to elevated PSA values between 2015 and 2020 were studied at university hospital Aachen, Germany. MRI-images were divided into cohorts with suspicious findings (PI-RADS ≥ 3) and negative findings (PI-RADS < 3). In patients with PI-RADS ≥ 3 TB combined with SB was performed. A part of this group underwent RP subsequently. In patients with PI-RADS < 3 and clinical suspicion SB was performed. In the PI-RADS ≥ 3 group (n = 197), TB combined with SB was performed in 194 cases. Three cases were lost to follow-up. Biopsy yielded 143 positive biopsies and 51 cases without carcinoma. TB detected 71% (102/143) and SB 98% (140/143) of the overall 143 carcinoma. Overall, 102 carcinomas were detected by TB, hereof 66% (67/102) clinically significant (Gleason ≥ 3+4) and 34% (35/102) clinically insignificant carcinoma (Gleason 3+3). SB detected 140 carcinomas, hereof 64% (90/140) csPCA and 36% (50/140) nsPCA. Forty-one of the overall 143 detected carcinoma were only found by SB, hereof 46% (19/41) csPCA and 54% (22/41) nsPCA. Tumor locations overlapped in 44% (63/143) between TB and SB. In 25% (36/143), SB detected additional tumor foci outside the target lesions. 70/143 patients subsequently underwent RP. The detection of tumor foci was congruent between mpMRI and prostatectomy specimen in 79% (55/70) of cases. Tumor foci were mpMRI occult in 21% (15/70) of cases. In the group with negative mpMRI (n = 111), biopsy was performed in 81 cases. Gleason ≥ 3+4 carcinoma was detected in 7% and Gleason 3+3 in 24% cases.

CONCLUSION

There was a notable number of cases in which SB detected tumor foci that were mpMRI occult and could have been missed by TB alone. Therefore, additional systematic random biopsy is still required. A supplemental random biopsy should be considered depending on the overall clinical suspicion in negative mpMRI.

Transperineal US-MRI Fusion-Guided Biopsy for the Detection of Clinical Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Cognitive and Software-Assisted Technique

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to find potential differences in clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection rates between transperineal software-assisted fusion biopsy (saFB) and cognitive fusion biopsies (cFB).

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify comparative studies using PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus according to the PICOS criteria. Cancer detection and complication rates were pooled using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method with the random effect model and reported as odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4 software by Cochrane Collaboration. The quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, using RoB 2 for randomized studies and ROBINS-I for retrospective and nonrandomized ones.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included for the meta-analysis, including 1149 cases in software-based and 963 cases in cognitive fusion biopsy. The detection rates of csPCa were similar between the two groups (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.74-1.37, p = 0.95). Study heterogeneity was low (I2 55%).

CONCLUSION

There is no actual evidence of the superiority of saFB over cFB in terms of the csPCa detection rate. Operator experience and software availability can drive the choice of one fusion technique over the other.

MRI/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Targeted Biopsy and Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Systematic Biopsy for Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Purpose

For men suspected of having prostate cancer (PCa), the transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided systematic biopsy (SB) was performed. MRI/TRUS fusion guided-targeted biopsy (MRI-TB) could enhance PCa detection, allowing sampling of sites at higher risk which were not obvious with TRUS alone. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the detection rates of prostate cancer by MRI-TB or MRI-TB plus SB versus SB, mainly for diagnosis of high-risk PCa.

Methods

A literature Search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. We searched from inception of the databases up to January 2021.

Results

A total of 5831 patients from 26 studies were included in the present meta-analysis. Compared to traditional TRUS-guided biopsy, MRI-TB had a significantly higher detection rate of clinically significant PCa (RR=1.27; 95%CI 1.15-1.40; p<0.001) and high-risk PCa (RR=1.41; 95% CI 1.22-1.64; p<0.001), while the detection rate of clinically insignificant PCa was lower (RR=0.65; 95%CI 0.55-0.77; p<0.001). MRI-TB and SB did not significantly differ in the detection of overall prostate cancer (RR=1.04; 95%CI 0.95-1.12; p=0.41). Compared with SB alone, we found that MRI-TB plus SB diagnosed more cases of overall, clinically significant and high-risk PCa (p<0.001).

Conclusion

Compared with systematic protocols, MRI-TB detects more clinically significant and high-risk PCa cases, and fewer clinically insignificant PCa cases. MRI-TB combined with SB enhances PCa detection in contrast with either alone but did not reduce the diagnosis rate of clinically insignificant PCa.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#searchadvanced, CRD42021218475.

Fusion versus cognitive MRI-guided prostate biopsies in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer

Objective:

This study assesses whether fusion or cognitive magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided prostate targeted and systematic transperineal biopsies (TPB) increase detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).

Materials and Methods:

A retrospective analysis was completed of patients (2018–2020) undergoing 3-Tesla multiparametric prostate MRI informing targeted (either cognitive or MIM software fusion approach) and systematic TPB. ISUP (International Society of Urological Pathology) grade group ⩾ 2 was considered csPCa.

Results:

A total of 355 cases from 4 urologists were included; 131 were fusion and 224 were cognitive MRI-guided biopsies. Of all csPCa found, 86.8% ( n = 171) of cases were confirmed to be at the MRI-indicated location and 11.6% were found as part of active surveillance. In all, 45.0% of the fusion group were found to have csPCa, compared to 62.05% ( n = 139) in the cognitive group ( p = 0.002). csPCa detection rates varied between urologists (41% to 78%, p < 0.001), so a subgroup analysis was performed on Urologist A; 45.0% of fusion and 41.3% of cognitive biopsies had csPCa ( p = 0.644). Multinomial logistic regression analysis showed that biopsy type, being on active surveillance, number of biopsy cores, iPSA (initial Prostate Specific Antigen) value or PIRADS (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System) score made no significant difference in whether csPCa was found.

Conclusion:

Cognitive and fusion targeting had similar csPCa detection rates. Further prospective studies would be beneficial to validate these findings.

Level of evidence:

2b (according to Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine)

Evaluating the diagnostic role of in-bore magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy: a single-centre study

Background

To evaluate the role of in‐bore MRI‐guided biopsy (IB‐MRGB) in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).

Methods

In this tertiary single centre study, a total of 125 consecutive patients receiving IB‐MRGB over a three‐year period were evaluated, including 73 patients who had prior biopsies and 52 biopsy‐naïve patients. We assessed cancer detection rate of patients according to the degree of suspicion based on mpMRI findings. Histopathological data were reviewed by experienced uropathologists.

Results

The mpMRI was suspicious for PCa (PI‐RADS 4/5) in 77% (96/125) and equivocal (PI‐RADS 3) in 23% (29/125). The detection rate for csPCa was 54.2% (52/96) and 20.7% (6/29) for suspicious lesions (PI‐RADS 4/5) and equivocal lesions (PI‐RADS 3), respectively. In subgroup analysis, patients with previous negative biopsy, overall positive biopsy rate and csPCa detection rate were 48.3% (19/35) and 34.5% (13/35), respectively. In patients on AS, 36/44 (81.8%) and 21/44 (47.8%) had PCa and csPCa respectively. In biopsy‐naïve patients 34/52 (65.4%) and 27/52 (51.92%) had PCa and csPCa respectively. Of the patients on AS, 18/44 (41.6%) upgraded from ISUP 1 to ISUP 2 PCa, and 4/44 (9.1%) upgraded from ISUP 1 to ISUP 3 PCa on IB‐MRGB. A total of 14 Clavien‐Dindo≤2 complications occurred in 14 patients (11.2%) that were directly related to the biopsy. No Clavien‐Dindo≥3 complications occurred.

Conclusion

MRI‐targeted biopsy is suitable for assessment of csPCa. Given the favourable complications profile, its use may be considered in both the initial biopsy and re‐biopsy settings.

How to Improve TRUS-Guided Target Biopsy following Prostate MRI

TRUS is a basic imaging modality when radiologists or urologists perform cognitive fusion or image fusion biopsy. This modality plays the role of the background images to add to an operator's cognitive function or MRI images. Operators need to know how to make TRUS protocols for lesion detection or targeting. Tumor location, size, and shape on TRUS are different from those on MRI because the scan axis is different. TRUS findings of peripheral or transition tumors are not well known to radiologists and urologists. Moreover, it remains unclear if systematic biopsy is necessary after a tumor is targeted. The purpose of this review is to introduce new TRUS protocols, new imaging features, new biopsy techniques, and to assess the necessity of systematic biopsy for improving biopsy outcomes.

Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy remains a safe method in confirming a prostate cancer diagnosis: a multicentre Australian analysis of infection rates

PURPOSE

Worldwide, transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle remains the most common method of diagnosing prostate cancer. Due to high infective complications reported, some have suggested it is now time to abandon this technique in preference of a trans-perineal approach. The aim of this study was to report on the infection rates following transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy in multiple Australian centres.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were collected from seven Australian centres across four states and territories that undertake transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsies for the diagnosis of prostate cancer, including major metropolitan and regional centres. In four centres, the data were collected prospectively. Rates of readmissions due to infection, urosepsis resulting in intensive care admission and mortality were recorded.

RESULTS

12,240 prostate biopsies were performed in seven Australian centres between July 1998 and December 2020. There were 105 readmissions for infective complications with rates between centres ranging from 0.19 to 2.60% and an overall rate of 0.86%. Admission to intensive care with sepsis ranged from 0 to 0.23% and overall 0.03%. There was no mortality in the 12,240 cases.

CONCLUSION

Infective complications following transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsies are very low, occurring in less than 1% of 12,240 biopsies. Though this study included a combination of both prospective and retrospective data and did not offer a comparison with a trans-perineal approach, TRUS prostate biopsy is a safe means of obtaining a prostate cancer diagnosis. Further prospective studies directly comparing the techniques are required prior to abandoning TRUS based upon infectious complications.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)-Targeted Biopsy in Patients with Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) Levels <20 ng/mL: A Single-Center Study in Northeastern China

Background

We investigated the feasibility of applying magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy (TB) in patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels <20 ng/mL.

Material/Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 218 patients with PSA levels <20 ng/mL and suspicious lesions according to the Prostate Imaging Recording and Data System version 2.0 (PI-RADS v2). All 218 men underwent transperineal MRI-TB, followed by template-guided 12-core systematic biopsy (SB). Of the 218 patients undergoing TB, 100 received MRI-ultrasound-assisted software fusion biopsy (FB) and 118 received cognitive biopsy (CB). Clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was defined as a Gleason score ≥3+4.

Results

The overall TB positive rate was similar to that of SB (P=0.156), but with a higher diagnostic rate for csPCa (P=0.034). SB misdiagnosed csPCa in 11.47% of cases; TB misdiagnosed csPCa in 5.50% of cases. SB+TB detected more tumors with a Gleason score of 7 than did SB alone (43 vs 22). Detection rates of csPCa were similar for CB and FB (P=0.217). In total, 47 men had 2 MRI-determined suspicious areas. Of 265 suspicious areas, 143 (53.96%) had a PI-RADS v2 score of 3; 92 (34.71%) had a score of 4; and 30 (11.32%) had a score of 5. The positive detection rates for csPCa in patients with PI-RADS v2 scores of 3, 4, and 5, were 11.19%, 48.91%, and 80.00%, respectively.

Conclusions

TB increased the positive biopsy detection rate but missed some cases of csPCa. TB combined with SB may be the most suitable biopsy for patients with PSA <20 ng/mL.

MRI-targeted prostate biopsy: the next step forward!

Aim

For decades, the gold standard technique for diagnosing prostate cancer was the 10 to 12 core systematic transrectal or transperineal biopsy, under ultrasound guidance. Over the past years, an increased rate of false negative results and detection of clinically insignificant prostate cancer has been noted, resulting into overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the changes in diagnosis and management of prostate cancer brought by MRI-targeted prostate biopsy.

Methods

A critical review of literature was carried out using the Medline database through a PubMed search, 37 studies meeting the inclusion criteria: prospective studies published in the past 8 years with at least 100 patients per study, which used multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging as guidance for targeted biopsies.

Results

In-Bore MRI targeted biopsy and Fusion targeted biopsy outperform standard systematic biopsy both in terms of overall and clinically significant prostate cancer detection, and ensure a lower detection rate of insignificant prostate cancer, with fewer cores needed. In-Bore MRI targeted biopsy performs better than Fusion biopsy especially in cases of apical lesions.

Conclusion

Targeted biopsy is an emerging and developing technique which offers the needed improvements in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer and lowers the incidence of insignificant ones, providing a more accurate selection of the patients for active surveillance and focal therapies.

Assessment of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-fusion prostate biopsy with concurrent standard systematic ultrasound-guided biopsy among men requiring repeat biopsy

INTRODUCTION

The role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-fusion biopsy (FB) remains unclear in men with prior negative prostate biopsies. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of FB with concurrent systematic biopsy (SB) in patients requiring repeat prostate biopsies.

METHODS

Patients with previous negative prostate biopsies requiring repeat biopsies were included. Those without suspicious lesions (≥Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] 3) on MRI were excluded. All patients underwent FB followed by SB. The primary outcome was the sensitivity for clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥7). The secondary objective was identification of potential predictive factors of biopsy performance.

RESULTS

A total of 53 patients were included; 41 (77%) patients were found to have clinically significant prostate cancer. FB had a higher detection rate of significant cancer compared to SB (85% vs. 76%, respectively, p=0.20) and lower diagnosis of indolent (Gleason score 3+3=6) cancer (10% vs. 27%, respectively, p=0.05). FB alone missed six (15%) clinically significant cancers, compared to 10 (24%) with SB. SB performance was significantly impaired in patients with anterior lesions and high prostate volumes (p<0.05). There was high degree of pathological discordance between the two approaches, with concordance seen in only 34% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with prior negative biopsies and ongoing suspicion for prostate cancer, a combined approach of FB with SB is needed for optimal detection and risk classification of clinically significant disease. Anterior tumors and large prostates were significant predictors of poor SB performance and an MRI-fusion alone approach in these settings could be considered.

mpMRI-targeted biopsy versus systematic biopsy for clinically significant prostate cancer diagnosis: a systematic review and metaanalysis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We aimed to compare the accuracy of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) diagnosis by magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy (MRI-TB) versus systematic biopsy (SB) in men suspected of having prostate cancer (PCa).

RECENT FINDINGS

In biopsy-naïve patients, MRI-TB was more accurate to identify csPCa than SB. However, when comparing specifically MRI-TB versus transperineal (SB), we did not find any difference. Furthermore, in a repeat biopsy scenario, MRI-TB found more csPCa than SB as well. Finally, postanalysis comparing combined biopsy (SB plus MRI-TB) suggests that the later alone may play a role in both scenarios for identifying csPCa.

SUMMARY

MRI-TB found more csPCa than SB in patients with suspected PCa in both scenarios, naïve and repeat biopsies, but more studies comparing those methods are warranted before any recommendation on this topic.

The role of multiparametric resonance and biopsy in prostate cancer detection: comparison with definitive histological report after laparoscopic/robotic radical prostatectomy

Purpose

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) targeted biopsy increases overall detection rates and decreases the risk of clinically insignificant PCa detection. The aim of this retrospective study is to compare concordance rates regarding side of lesion and Gleason Score at fusion targeted/systematic biopsy and MRI with the definitive histologic report of prostatectomy specimen.

Methods

115 patients underwent multiparametric (mp) MRI and successively fusion targeted/systematic biopsy. 107 patients, with a positive biopsy for PCa, further underwent laparoscopic/robotic radical prostatectomy. We compared surgical histologic report with biopsy histologic report for side of lesion and Gleason Score. We further compared PIRADS score at mpMRI with Gleason Score of both histologic reports.

Results

Concordance rate for mpMRI lesion side was 74% compared to biopsy and 52.3% compared to surgical histologic report (p < 0.0001). Fusion targeted/systematic biopsy reported a concordance rate with surgical histologic report of 67.3% for side of the lesion, while Gleason Score was concordant for 73.6% for clinically significant cancer (Gleason Score ≥ 7) (p < 0.0001). PIRADS score ≥ 3 was further associated with clinically significant cancer at surgical histologic report in 92.4% of cases (p = 0.359).

Conclusion

Multiparametric MRI of the prostate reaches a good and improvable accuracy in the detection of suspicious PCa before biopsy. A combined approach of fusion targeted and systematic biopsy could further increase the overall accuracy in PCa diagnosis, especially in biopsy-naïve patients, reaching concordance rates with definitive histologic report up to 52.3% and 85.5%.

Transperineal prostate biopsy: a review of technique

As the second most diagnosed cancer worldwide, prostate cancer is confirmed via tissue biopsy. Given the large number of prostate biopsies performed each year, the technique should be as accurate and safe as possible for the patient’s well-being. Transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-biopsy) is most offered worldwide. Transperineal biopsy (TPP-biopsy), on the other hand, has been gaining popularity due to its superior sensitivity and lower rate of sepsis. This article offers a review of the brachytherapy grid technique used to perform a TPP-biopsy, as well as a discussion of possible variations in the procedure. TPP-biopsy is typically performed under general anaesthesia with patient in lithotomy. Through the perineum, cores of tissue are taken systematically, with or without targeting, under US guidance. Different fusion techniques (cognition, MRI-US fusion software, MRI in-bore) can be used to target pre-identified lesions on MRI. The sampling can be done either by free hand or using a brachytherapy grid. Robotic assisted prostate biopsy is also available on the market as an alternative. In recent years, there has been accumulating evidence showing that it is safe and feasible to perform TPPB under local anaesthesia. This may improve the uptake of TPPB as the preferred biopsy technique for prostate cancer.

MRI/TRUS fusion vs. systematic biopsy: intra-patient comparison of diagnostic accuracy for prostate cancer using PI-RADS v2

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of multiparametric magnetic resonance/transrectal ultrasound fusion (MRI/TRUS fusion) biopsy versus systematic biopsy and its association with PI-RADS v2 categories in patients with suspected prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

122 patients undergoing both MRI/TRUS fusion and systematic biopsy, with suspicion of prostate cancer, with suspicious findings on MRI based on PI-RADS v2, were included between April 2016 and March 2017. Comparison of tumor detection rates using each technique and combined techniques was performed for all lesions as well as those that are traditionally difficult to access (i.e., anterior lesions).

RESULTS

Prostate cancer was detected in 83/122 patients (68%) with 74.6% clinically significant lesions (Gleason 3 + 4 or greater). There was a statistically significant difference in presence of clinically significant prostate cancer in PI-RADS v2 categories of 3, 4, and 5 (20%, 52% and 77%, respectively, p < 0.001). Fusion biopsy was positive in a significantly higher percentage of patients versus systematic biopsy (56% versus 48%, respectively, p < 0.05). The fusion biopsy alone was positive in 20%. Of 34 patients with anterior lesions on MRI, 44% were detected only by fusion biopsy, with a joint yield of 71%. In patients with previous negative systematic biopsies, 48.7% lesions were found by fusion biopsy with 20.5% being exclusively positive by this method. The percentage of positive cores for fusion biopsies was significantly higher than for systematic biopsies (26% vs. 12.3%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The incorporation of MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy significantly improves the detection rate of prostate cancer versus systematic biopsy, particularly for anterior lesions.

Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing cognitive vs. image-guided fusion prostate biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing overall prostate cancer detection rate and clinically-significant prostate cancer detection rate between MRI-ultrasound image guided fusion biopsy (MRI-US FB) and cognitive biopsy (CB).

METHODS

A systematic review of Pubmed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane library databases was performed. Identified studies were assessed for clinical relevance and excluded based on a set of predefined criteria. Final articles included in the analysis comprised only prospective trials that compared CB vs. MRI-US FB in men with MRI-identifiable lesions (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score 2+). Articles were reviewed for patient demographics, MRI protocol, and rates of overall and clinically significant prostate cancer detection by both modalities.

RESULTS

Nine studies were analyzed. A composite 1,714 men with mean age 64.6 years and mean PSA 8.2 ng/dL were reviewed. When comparing FB to CB, the odds ratio for overall and for clinically significant prostate cancer detection was 1.11 (95%CI 0.91-1.36, P = 0.30) and 1.13 (95%CI 0.89-1.44, P = 0.32), respectively. Heterogeneity among the studies was moderate but not significant for either overall (X² = 14.67; I² = 45%; P = 0.07) or clinically significant prostate cancer detection (X² = 11.81; I² = 49%; P = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

MRI-US FB demonstrates a trend toward improved rates of prostate cancer detection compared to CB, although this is not statistically significant. Further comparative studies may help to further elucidate whether one of these modalities is superior over the other.

Prostate biopsy: when and how to perform

Prostate cancer, unlike other cancers, has been sampled in a non-targeted, systematic manner in the past three decades. On account of the low volume of prostate sampled despite the multiple cores acquired, systematic transrectal (TRUS) biopsy suffered from low sensitivity in picking up clinically significant prostate cancer. In addition, a significant number of cancers of the anterior, lateral peripheral zone, and the apex were missed as these areas were undersampled or missed during this biopsy protocol. Subsequently, the number of cores acquired was increased with special focus given to targeting the previously undersampled areas. These procedures led to an increase in the complication rates as well as detection of more clinically insignificant cancers. The advent of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and its high intrinsic tissue contrast enabled better detection of prostate cancer. This led to the introduction of MRI-targeted biopsies with either MRI-TRUS fusion or under direct (in-gantry) guidance. MRI-targeted biopsies increased the percentage of positive cores and detection of clinically significant prostate cancers; however, these are expensive, time-intensive, require significant capital investment and operator expertise. This article describes the indications, workflow, complications, advantages, and disadvantages of TRUS-guided biopsy followed by MRI-guided biopsies.

Comparisons between magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy and standard biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: A prospective cohort study

Prostate-specific antigen is not useful for detection of prostate cancer in Chinese men. The major problems in prostate cancer patients are overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The objective of the study was to test the hypothesis that targeted biopsy is an accurate diagnostic tool for prostate cancer detection than standard biopsy in Chinese men.Total, 998 patients whom multiparticulate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging had revealed at least 1 lesion in the prostate were included in a cohort. Patients were subjected to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasound (US) fusion-guided biopsy followed US-guided biopsy. Benefits of a diagnostic test were evaluated by decision curve analysis. Patients who were diagnosed as having prostate cancer by either of biopsies were subjected to radical prostatectomies followed by whole-mounted pathology (n = 578). Spearman rank correlation was performed between the biopsy results and the subtype of prostate cancer at 99% of confidence level.With respect to whole-mounted pathology, for US-guided biopsy, MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy, and combined data of both biopsies, sensitivities were 0.973, 0.983, and 0.973 and accuracies were 0.837, 0.91, and 0.917, respectively. MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy (P = .165) and combined data of both biopsies (P = .182) had the same specificity to whole-mount pathology. However, a US-guided biopsy had not the same specificity to whole-mount pathology (P = .0003). Decision-making zones for radical prostatectomy of different biopsies were in the order of combined data of both biopsies >MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy >US-guided biopsy.Only the targeted biopsy is recommended for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.