Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prostate MRI–TRUS fusion biopsy: a review of the state of the art procedure

  • Special Section: Male pelvis
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Prostate cancer is the fourth most common cancer and population-based screening programmes are being increasingly adopted worldwide. Screening-positive patients undergo routine transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided systematic biopsy, which is the current diagnostic standard for prostate cancer. However, systematic biopsies suffer from poor sensitivity, especially for the tumors of the anterior prostate and apex as well as in large volume glands. In the past decade, MRI-guided targeted biopsies have come up, which utilize the multiparametric capability of MRI to target lesions for sampling. MRI/TRUS fusion biopsies combine the advantages of MRI-targeting with that of real-time guidance made possible by TRUS. MRI–TRUS fusion biopsies are being increasingly used in men with high clinical suspicion of prostate cancer who have had prior negative systematic biopsies. A large number of fusion biopsy platforms are currently available commercially. Although the basic workflow is similar, there are differences in the operational software, biopsy routes offered, TRUS acquisition technique, type of correction applied at the time of fusion and in the probe tracking hardware. The article describes the current role and indications of MRI–TRUS fusion biopsy followed by a discussion on the workflow, patient preparation, biopsy procedure and complications.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. GLOBOCAN Cancer Fact Sheets: prostate cancer - IARC [Internet]. Available from: http://globocan.iarc.fr/old/FactSheets/cancers/prostate-new.asp

  2. Wolf AMD, Wender RC, Etzioni RB, Thompson IM, D’Amico AV, Volk RJ, et al. American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of prostate cancer: update 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010 Apr;60(2):70–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ching CB, Moussa AS, Li J, Lane BR, Zippe C, Jones JS. Does transrectal ultrasound probe configuration really matter? End fire versus side fire probe prostate cancer detection rates. J Urol. 2009 May;181(5):2077–82; discussion 2082-2083.

  4. Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MGM. Magnetic Resonance Imaging–targeted Biopsy May Enhance the Diagnostic Accuracy of Significant Prostate Cancer Detection Compared to Standard Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015 Sep 1;68(3):438–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kam J, Yuminaga Y, Kim R, Aluwihare K, Macneil F, Ouyang R, et al. Does magnetic resonance imaging–guided biopsy improve prostate cancer detection? A comparison of systematic, cognitive fusion and ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy. Prostate Int [Internet]. 2017 Nov 2 [cited 2018 Mar 31]; Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2287888217301101

  6. Van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israël 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-naïve Men with Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen: A Large Prospective Multicenter Clinical Study. Eur Urol. 2018 Nov 23;

  7. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong H, Stamatakis L, Vourganti S, Nix J, Hoang AN, Walton-Diaz A, Shuch B, Weintraub M, Kruecker J, Amalou H, Turkbey B, Merino MJ, Choyke PL, Wood BJ, Pinto PA. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013 Nov;64(5):713-719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.059. Epub 2013 Jun 12. PMID: 23787357; PMCID: PMC6301057.

  8. Kvåle R, Møller B, Wahlqvist R, et al. (2009) Concordance between Gleason scores of needle biopsies and radical prostatectomy specimens: a population-based study. BJU Int. 103(12):1647–1654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Das CJ, Razik A, Sharma S, Verma S. Prostate biopsy: when and how to perform. Clin Radiol [Internet]. 2019 May 9 [cited 2019 Jul 31];0(0). Available from: https://www.clinicalradiologyonline.net/article/S0009-9260(19)30160-6/abstract

  10. Verma S, Bhavsar AS, Donovan J. MR Imaging–Guided Prostate Biopsy Techniques. Magn Reson Imaging Clin. 2014 May 1;22(2):135–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018 Mar 18;0(0):null.

  12. Ahmed HU, Bosaily AE-S, 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. The Lancet. 2017 Feb 25;389(10071):815–22.

  13. Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management (update) | Guidance and guidelines | NICE [Internet]. [cited 2019 Jan 18]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/indevelopment/gid-ng10057/documents

  14. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rosenkrantz AB, Verma S, Choyke P, Eberhardt SC, Eggener SE, Gaitonde K, et al. Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy in Patients with a Prior Negative Biopsy: A Consensus Statement by AUA and SAR. J Urol. 2016;196(6):1613–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sarkar S, Verma S. MR Imaging–Targeted Prostate Biopsies. Radiol Clin. 2018 Mar 1;56(2):289–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wolf JS, Bennett CJ, Dmochowski RR, Hollenbeck BK, Pearle MS, Schaeffer AJ, et al. Best practice policy statement on urologic surgery antimicrobial prophylaxis. J Urol. 2008 Apr;179(4):1379–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Culkin DJ, Exaire EJ, Green D, Soloway MS, Gross AJ, Desai MR, et al. Anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy in urological practice: ICUD/AUA review paper. J Urol. 2014 Oct;192(4):1026–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Martin PR, Cool DW, Romagnoli C, Fenster A, Ward AD. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted, 3D transrectal ultrasound-guided fusion biopsy for prostate cancer: Quantifying the impact of needle delivery error on diagnosis. Med Phys. 2014 Jul;41(7):073504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Natarajan S, Marks LS, Margolis DJA, Huang J, Macairan ML, Lieu P, et al. Clinical application of a 3D ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy system. Urol Oncol. 2011 Jun;29(3):334–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Harvey CJ, Pilcher J, Richenberg J, Patel U, Frauscher F. Applications of transrectal ultrasound in prostate cancer. Br J Radiol. 2012 Nov;85(Spec Iss 1):S3–17.

  22. Rosario DJ, Lane JA, Metcalfe C, Donovan JL, Doble A, Goodwin L, et al. Short term outcomes of prostate biopsy in men tested for cancer by prostate specific antigen: prospective evaluation within ProtecT study. BMJ. 2012 Jan 9;344:d7894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Efesoy O, Bozlu M, Çayan S, Akbay E. Complications of transrectal ultrasound-guided 12-core prostate biopsy: a single center experience with 2049 patients. Turk J Urol. 2013 Mar;39(1):6–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, 110029, India

    Chandan J. Das, Abdul Razik & Arjunlokesh Netaji

  2. Department of Radiology, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, ML 0761, 234 Goodman Street, Cincinnati, OH, 45267-0761, USA

    Sadhna Verma

Authors
  1. Chandan J. Das
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abdul Razik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arjunlokesh Netaji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sadhna Verma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sadhna Verma.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Das, C.J., Razik, A., Netaji, A. et al. Prostate MRI–TRUS fusion biopsy: a review of the state of the art procedure. Abdom Radiol 45, 2176–2183 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02391-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02391-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation