Paradigm Shift in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Pre-Biopsy Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Targeted Biopsy

With regard to the indolent clinical characteristics of prostate cancer (PCa), the more selective detection of clinically significant PCa (CSC) has been emphasized in its diagnosis and management. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has advanced technically, and recent international cooperation has provided a standardized imaging and reporting system for prostate MRI. Accordingly, prostate MRI has recently been investigated and utilized as a triage tool before biopsy to guide tissue sampling to increase the detection rate of CSC beyond the staging tool for patients in whom PCa was already confirmed on conventional systematic biopsy. Radiologists must understand the current paradigm shift for better PCa diagnosis and management. This article reviewed the recent literature, demonstrating the diagnostic value of pre-biopsy prostate MRI with targeted biopsy and discussed unsolved issues regarding the paradigm shift in the diagnosis of PCa.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsy Versus Systematic Biopsy in the Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted prostate biopsy (MRI-TB) may be an alternative to systematic biopsy for diagnosing prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

The primary aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to compare the detection rates of clinically significant and clinically insignificant cancer by MRI-TB with those by systematic biopsy in men undergoing prostate biopsy to identify prostate cancer.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases. We included prospective and retrospective paired studies where the index test was MRI-TB and the comparator test was systematic biopsy. We also included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) if one arm included MRI-TB and another arm included systematic biopsy. The risk of bias was assessed using a modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 checklist. In addition, the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool was used for RCTs.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We included 68 studies with a paired design and eight RCTs, comprising a total of 14709 men who either received both MRI-TB and systematic biopsy, or were randomised to receive one of the tests. MRI-TB detected more men with clinically significant cancer than systematic biopsy (detection ratio [DR] 1.16 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.09-1.24], p<0.0001) and fewer men with clinically insignificant cancer than systematic biopsy (DR 0.66 [95% CI 0.57-0.76], p<0.0001). The proportion of cores positive for cancer was greater for MRI-TB than for systematic biopsy (relative risk 3.17 [95% CI 2.82-3.56], p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

MRI-TB is an attractive alternative diagnostic strategy to systematic biopsy.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We evaluated the published literature, comparing two methods of diagnosing prostate cancer. We found that biopsies targeted to suspicious areas on magnetic resonance imaging were better at detecting prostate cancer that needs to be treated and avoiding the diagnosis of disease that does not need treatment than the traditional systematic biopsy.

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

A systematic review was conducted to investigate the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MPMRI) followed by targeted biopsy in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPC) and to compare it with transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS-guided) systematic biopsy in patients with an elevated risk of prostate cancer who are either biopsy-naive or who have a previous negative TRUS-guided biopsy. MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE (1997 to April 2014), the Cochrane Library and six relevant conferences were searched to find eligible studies. Search terms indicative of 'prostate cancer' and 'magnetic resonance imaging' with their alternatives were used. Twelve systematic reviews, 52 full texts and 28 abstracts met the preplanned study selection criteria; data from 15 articles were extracted. In patients with an elevated risk of prostate cancer who were biopsy-naive, MPMRI followed by targeted biopsy could detect 2-13% of CSPC patients whom TRUS-guided systematic biopsy missed; TRUS-guided systematic biopsy could detect 0-7% of CSPC patients whom MPMRI followed by targeted biopsy missed. In patients with an elevated risk of prostate cancer who had a previous negative TRUS-guided biopsy, MPMRI followed by targeted biopsy detected more CSPC patients than repeated TRUS-guided systematic biopsy in all four studies, with a total of 516 patients, but only one study reached a statistically significant difference. In patients with an elevated risk of prostate cancer who are biopsy-naive, there is insufficient evidence for MPMRI followed by targeted biopsy to be considered the standard of care. In patients who had a prior negative TRUS-guided systematic biopsy and show a growing risk of having CSPC, MPMRI followed by targeted biopsy may be helpful to detect more CSPC cases as opposed to a repeat TRUS-guided systematic biopsy.

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsy of the Prostate: Preliminary Results of a Prospective Single-Centre Study

Purpose: To evaluate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound (mpMRI/TRUS) fusion targeted biopsy (TB) of the prostate for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis. Patients and Methods: From April 2013 to January 2014, 53 men were included in this prospective single-centre study. The degree of PCa suspicion from mpMRI findings was classified according to the PI-RADS scoring system. Of these, 50 patients underwent both an mpMRI/TRUS fusion TB and a 10-core systematic biopsy (SB) of the prostate and were eligible for analysis. Results: 225 targeted and 500 systematic cores were included in this study. PCa was histologically confirmed in 52.0% of patients (26/50), whereas TB revealed PCa in 46.0% (23/50) and SB in 36.0% (18/50). TB identified PCa in 16.0% of all patients (8/50) that were missed by SB. All told, the targeted core was 2.8 times more likely to be PCa-positive than the systematic core (29.3 vs. 10.4%). Conclusions: mpMRI/TRUS fusion TB of the prostate is safe, practicable and may improve PCa diagnosis using fewer biopsy cores compared to SB.

3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging improves the prostate cancer detection rate in transrectral ultrasound-guided biopsy

The detection rate of prostate cancer (PCa) using traditional biopsy guided by transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) is not satisfactory. The aim of this study was to determine the utility of 3-Tesla (3-T) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) prior to TRUS-guided prostate biopsy and to investigate which subgroup of patients had the most evident improvement in PCa detection rate. A total of 420 patients underwent 3-T MRI examination prior to the first prostate biopsy and the positions of suspicious areas were recorded respectively. TRUS-guided biopsy regimes included systematic 12-core biopsy and targeted biopsy identified by MRI. Patients were divided into subgroups according to their serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, PSA density (PSAD), prostate volume, TRUS findings and digital rectal examination (DRE) findings. The ability of MRI to improve the cancer detection rate was evaluated. The biopsy positive rate of PCa was 41.2% (173/420), and 41 of the 173 (23.7%) patients were detected only by targeted biopsy in the MRI-suspicious area. Compared with the systematic biopsy, the positive rate was significantly improved by the additional targeted biopsy (P=0.0033). The highest improvement of detection rate was observed in patients with a PSA level of 4–10 ng/ml, PSAD of 0.12–0.20 ng/ml², prostate volume >50 ml, negative TRUS findings and negative DRE findings (P<0.05). Therefore, it is considered that 3-T MRI examination could improve the PCa detection rate on first biopsy, particularly in patients with a PSA level of 4–10 ng/ml, PSAD of 0.12–0.20 ng/ml², prostate volume of >50 ml, negative TRUS findings and negative DRE findings.

1.5-T magnetic resonance-guided transgluteal biopsies of the prostate in patients with clinically suspected prostate cancer: technique and feasibility

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to examine the feasibility and safety of magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy (MRGBx) with a transgluteal approach in patients with cancer suspicious prostatic lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was approved by the ethical committee. A total of 25 men with clinically suspected prostate cancer with increased prostate-specific antigen levels and at least 1 previous negative transrectal ultrasound-guided prostatic biopsy (TRUSBx) underwent diagnostic magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the prostate. Cancer suspicious regions (CSR) were identified, and MRGBx with a transgluteal approach in a large closed-bore 1.5-T MR system was manually performed in coaxial technique, using transversal fat-suppressed T2-weighted true fast imaging with steady-state free precession sequences. Success rate, biopsy findings, side effects, procedure time, number of acquisitions for the repositioning of the needle guide, and length of the biopsy channel were documented. Follow-up was performed 24 months after the procedure.

RESULTS

In diagnostic MR imaging of the prostate, a total of 40 CSRs were detected in 25 patients. All MRGBx procedures were technically successful and all CSRs were biopsied. The mean number of core biopsies per CSR was 3.3 ± 1.5 (range, 1-7). Histopathological analysis revealed adenocarcinoma in 35% (14/40), acute or chronic prostatitis in 30% (12/40), adenofibromyomatous changes in 22.5% (9/40), and no identifiable pathology in 17.5% (7/40) of CSRs, with a pathological overlap for chronic prostatitis and adenofibromyomatous changes in 1 patient with biopsies in 2 CSRs. No missed prostate cancer after MR-guided biopsy in clinical follow-up was detected. Mean procedure time was 31 ± 7 minutes (range, 21-46 minutes). Side effects were hematuria (n = 7), hematospermia (n = 3), combined hematuria/hematospermia (n = 2), and infection (n=1).

CONCLUSION

Magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy of the prostate gland with a transgluteal approach is feasible, safe, and a promising technique for histological clarification of cancer suspicious lesions in patients with increased prostate-specific antigen levels after negative TRUSBx. Magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy offers a reasonable alternative to repeated TRUSBx for histological clarification of prostate cancer.

MRI-targeted prostate biopsy: a review of technique and results

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is of interest for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer and mpMRI-targeted biopsies are being used increasingly in clinical practice. Target acquisition is performed using a range of magnet strengths and varying combinations of anatomical and functional sequences. Target identification at the time of biopsy can be carried out in the MRI scanner (in-bore biopsy) or, more commonly, the MRI-target is biopsied under ultrasonographic guidance. Many groups use cognitive or visual registration, whereby the biopsy target is identified on MRI and ultrasonography is subsequently used to direct the needle to the same location. Other groups use registration software to show prebiopsy MRI data on real-time ultrasonography. The reporting of histological results in MRI-targeted biopsy studies varies greatly. The most useful reports compare the detection of clinically significant disease in standard cores versus mpMRI-targeted cores in the same cohort of men, as recommended by the STAndards of Reporting for MRI-Targeted biopsy studies (START) consensus panel. Further evidence is needed before an mpMRI-targeted strategy can be recommended as the standard intervention for men at risk of prostate cancer.

MRI-Safe Robot for Endorectal Prostate Biopsy

This paper reports the development of an MRI-Safe robot for direct (interventional) MRI-guided endorectal prostate biopsy. The robot is constructed of nonmagnetic and electrically nonconductive materials, and is electricity free, using pneumatic actuation and optical sensors. Targeting biopsy lesions of MRI abnormality presents substantial clinical potential for the management of prostate cancer. The paper describes MRI-Safe requirements, presents the kinematic architecture, design and construction of the robot, and a comprehensive set of preclinical tests for MRI compatibility and needle targeting accuracy. The robot has a compact and simple 3 degree-of-freedom (DoF) structure, two for orienting a needle-guide and one to preset the depth of needle insertion. The actual insertion is performed manually through the guide and up to the preset depth. To reduce the complexity and size of the robot next to the patient, the depth setting DoF is remote. Experimental results show that the robot is safe to use in any MRI environment (MRI-Safe). Comprehensive MRI tests show that the presence and motion of the robot in the MRI scanner cause virtually no image deterioration or signal to noise ratio (SNR) change. Robot's accuracy in bench test, CT-guided in-vitro, MRI-guided in-vitro and animal tests are 0.37mm, 1.10mm, 2.09mm, and 2.58mm respectively. These values are acceptable for clinical use.