Current Ability of Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Targeted Biopsy to Improve the Detection of Prostate Cancer
Abstract
Introduction:
Recent advancements in imaging technology have significantly increased the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer. However, tissue diagnosis and grading remain the gold standard for diagnosis and prognostication. Because transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy performs poorly, extensive research has been conducted into biopsy techniques that are guided by magnetic resonance imaging, including direct in-bore, cognitive fusion and magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided biopsies.
Methods:
The PubMed® database was searched from inception until January 15, 2014 for criteria pertaining to targeted prostate biopsy.
Results:
Initial studies of the 3 types of targeted prostate biopsy yielded similar results. Most importantly, targeted biopsy detects a greater amount of clinically significant prostate cancer than does transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided biopsy has generated the most interest, as it is an office based procedure that does not require a significant change from the current workflow of transrectal prostate biopsy. These techniques hold great promise in the areas of patient selection for definitive treatment, appropriate screening, active surveillance and focal therapy for prostate cancer.
Conclusions:
Targeted prostate biopsy has the potential to significantly improve the way patients are screened, treated and monitored in the setting of prostate cancer. These techniques allow for an individualized approach to each patient, which is a substantial improvement over the current practice of effectively random prostate biopsies. Large, multicenter studies are necessary to determine whether targeted prostate biopsy will become a definitive standard of care.
References
- 1 : Needle biopsy in diagnosis of prostatic cancer. Calif Med1954; 81: 308. Google Scholar
- 2 : Carcinoma of the prostate. JAMA1943; 122: 781. Google Scholar
- 3 : Screening for prostate cancer. A decision analytic view. JAMA1994; 272: 773. Google Scholar
- 4 : Development and application of new equipment for transrectal ultrasonography. J Clin Ultrasound1974; 2: 91. Google Scholar
- 5 : Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol1989; 142: 71. Abstract, Google Scholar
- 6 :
The development of the modern prostate biopsy . In: Prostate Biopsy. Edited by . Rijeka, Croatia: InTech2011: 1. Available at www.intechopen.com/books/prostate-biopsy/the-development-of-the-modern-prostate-biopsy. Google Scholar - 7 : Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin2013; 63: 11. Google Scholar
- 8 : Extended peripheral zone biopsy schemes increase cancer detection rates and minimize variance in prostate specific antigen and age related cancer rates: results of a community multi-practice study. J Urol2003; 169: 125. Link, Google Scholar
- 9 : Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol2011; 186: 1830. Link, Google Scholar
- 10 : Endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging identifies locally advanced prostate cancer in select patients with clinically localized disease. Urology1998; 51: 449. Google Scholar
- 11 : Comparison of endorectal coil and nonendorectal coil T2W and diffusion-weighted MRI at 3 Tesla for localizing prostate cancer: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. J Magn Reson Imaging2013; . Epub ahead of print. Google Scholar
- 12 : Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. J Urol2011; 186: 1818. Link, Google Scholar
- 13 : Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology2011; 261: 46. Google Scholar
- 14 : 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 Urol2012; 61: 177. Google Scholar
- 15 : A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial. Eur Urol2013; . Epub ahead of print. Google Scholar
- 16 : Fully automated prostate magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasound fusion via a probabilistic registration metric. Proc Soc Photo Opt Instrum Eng2013; 8671: 1. Google Scholar
- 17 : Improving detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: MRI/TRUS fusion-guided prostate biopsy. J Urol2013; . Epub ahead of print. Google Scholar
- 18 : Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol2013; 64: 713. Google Scholar
- 19 : Utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging suspicion levels for detecting prostate cancer. J Urol2013; 190: 1721. Link, Google Scholar
- 20 : Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol2011; 186: 1281. Link, Google Scholar
- 21 : Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion device. J Urol2013; 189: 86. Link, Google Scholar
- 22 : Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer detection: comparison of random and targeted biopsies. J Urol2013; 189: 493. Link, Google Scholar
- 23 : Critical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging targeted, transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal fusion biopsy for detection of prostate cancer. J Urol2013; 190: 1380. Link, Google Scholar
- 24 : Real-time virtual sonography for navigation during targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging data. Int J Urol2010; 17: 855. Google Scholar
- 25 : Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. Eur Urol2013; 63: 125. Google Scholar
- 26 : Current status of MRI and ultrasound fusion software platforms for guidance of prostate biopsies. BJU Int2013; . Epub ahead of print. Google Scholar
- 27 : D'Amico risk stratification correlates with degree of suspicion of prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol2011; 185: 815. Link, Google Scholar
- 28 : Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in confirming eligibility for active surveillance for men with prostate cancer. Cancer2013; 119: 3359. Google Scholar
- 29 : The role of magnetic resonance imaging in focal therapy for prostate cancer: recommendations from a consensus panel. BJU Int2013; . Epub ahead of print. Google Scholar
- 30 : Scoring systems used for the interpretation and reporting of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection, localization, and characterization: could standardization lead to improved utilization of imaging within the diagnostic pathway?. J Magn Reson Imaging2013; 37: 48. Google Scholar
- 31 : Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy–prospective multicenter study. Radiology2013; 268: 461. Google Scholar
- 32 : Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. BJU Int2011; 108: E171. Google Scholar
- 33 : Prostate cancer risk inflation as a consequence of image-targeted biopsy of the prostate: a computer simulation study. Eur Urol2014; 65: 628. Google Scholar
