Magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy of the prostate can be improved by adding systematic biopsy

Victor Mihail Cauni, Dan Stanescu, Florin Tanase, Bogdan Mihai, Cristian Persu


Aim: Magnetic resonance/ ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy (Tbs) is widely used for diagnosing prostate cancer (PCa). The aim of our study was to compare the cancer detection rate (CDR) and the clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate (csPCa) of the magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy with those of the standard systematic biopsy (Sbs) and of the combination of both techniques.

Material and methods: A total of 182 patients underwent magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion Tbs on the prostate for PCa suspicion based on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mMRI) detection of lesions with PI-RADSv2 score ≥3. A total of 78 patients had prior negative biopsies. Tb was performed by taking 2-4 cores from each suspected lesion, followed by Sb with 12 cores. We evaluated the overall detection rate of PCa and clinically significant prostate cancer, defined as any PCa with Gleason score ≥3+4.

Results: Median prostate specific antigen (PSA) level pre-biopsy was 7.4 ng/ml and median free-PSA/PSA ratio was 10.2%. Patient median age was 62 years old. PIRADSv2 score was 3 in 54 cases, 4 in 96 cases and 5 in 32 cases. PI-RADS-dependent detection rate of Tbs for scores 3, 4 and 5 was 25.9%, 65.6% and 84.4%, respectively, with csPCa detection rates of 24.1%, 54.2%, and 71.9%. Overall detection rate was 57.1% for Tbs, which increased to 60.4% by adding Sbs results. Detection rate for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) was 48.4% and increased to 51.1% by adding Sbs. Overall detection rate for repeated biopsy was 50% and 68.3% for biopsy in naïve patients. Sbs detection rate was 55.5%, 8 patients having a negative biopsy on Tbs.

Conclusions: When Tbs is considered due to a PI-RADS ≥3 lesion on mMRI, combined Tbs + Sbs increases the overall CDR and csPCa detection rates.


mMRI; fusion biopsy; targeted biopsy; systematic biopsy; prostate cancer

Full Text:



H.U. Ahmed, A. El-Shater Bosaily, L.C. Brown, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet, 389 (2017), pp. 815-822

A. Maxeiner, B. Kittner, C. Blobel, et al. Primary magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion-guided biopsy of the prostate. BJU Int, 122 (2018), pp. 211-218

Borkowetz A., Zastrow S., Platzek I. et al. Comparison of MRI/ultrasound-fusion-biopsy to systematic prostate biopsy in prediction of tumour aggressiveness and final histopathology. Eur Urol Suppl 2015;14/2;e209

Olivier Wegelin, Harm H.E. van Melick 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 Urology, volume 71, issue 4, p517-531, 2017

Barry Delongchamps N., Lefevre A., Beuvon F. et al. Multiparametric MRI-TRUS fusion targeted prostate biopsies: Characteristics of MRI undetected tumour foci. Eur Urol Suppl 2014;13;e955

Fojecki G., Friis J., Carlsson S., Tiessen S. Is MRI/TRUS guided fusion prostate biopsy the way forward? Eur Urol Suppl 2017; 16(6);e2297

O. Rouviere, P. Puech, R. Renard-Penna, et al. Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol, 20 (2019), pp. 100-109

N. Mottet, R.C.N. van den Bergh, E. Briers, et al. EAU–ESTRO–ESUR–SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Presented at the EAU Annual Congress Barcelona (2019)

J.O. Barentsz, J.C. Weinreb, S. Verma, et al. Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 guidelines for multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and recommendations for use. Eur Urol, 69 (2016), pp. 41-49

F.V. Mertan, M.D. Greer, J.H. Shih, et al. Prospective evaluation of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for prostate cancer detection. J Urol, 196 (2016), pp. 690-696

J.I. Epstein, L. Egevad, M.B. Amin, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol, 40 (2016), pp. 244-252

Zalesky M., Stejskal J., Ryznarova et al. Detection rate of significant prostate cancer in MRI fusion prostate biopsy. Eur Urol Suppl 2016; 15(11);e1349

Argun O.B., Obek C., Tuna MB., et al. MRI Guided TRUS Fusion Prostate Biopsy. Eur Urol Suppl 2017; 16(6);e2284

Margel D., Ber Y., Sela S. et al. The learning curve of MRI-US fusion prostate biopsies. Eur Urol Suppl 2018; 17(2);e1885

Westhoff N., Siegel F., Peter C. et al. Defining the target prior to prostate fusion biopsy: The effect of MRI reporting on cancer detection. Eur Urol Suppl 2018; 17(2);e890

J.J. Futterer, A. Briganti, P. De Visschere, et al. Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol, 68 (2015), pp. 1045-1053

A. Sidana, M.J. Watson, A.K. George, et al. Fusion prostate biopsy outperforms 12-core systematic prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative systematic biopsy: a multi-institutional analysis. Urol Oncol, 36 (341) (2018), pp. e341-e347

M. van der Leest, E. Cornel, B. Israel, 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, 75 (2019), pp. 570-578

M.R. Pokorny, M. de Rooij, E. Duncan 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, 66 (2014), pp. 22-29

B. Djavan, A. Zlotta, M. Remzi, et al. Optimal predictors of prostate cancer on repeat prostate biopsy: a prospective study of 1,051 men. J Urol, 163 (2000), pp. 1144-1148 discussion 1148–9

Aranda-Lozano J., Sierra-Labarta R., Pablo-Cardenas A, et al. First prostate biopsy vs rebiopsy: analysis of our series. Arch Esp Urol, 71 (2018), pp. 825-831

Kesch C., Radtke J.P., Roth W., et al. Multiparametric MRI and MRI-TRUS fusion-biopsy in patients with prior negative prostate biopsy. Eur Urol Suppl 2016;15(3);e502

V. Kasivisvanathan, A.S. Rannikko, M. Borghi, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med, 378 (2018), pp. 1767-1777



  • There are currently no refbacks.