Role of magnetic resonance imaging in defining a biopsy strategy for detection of prostate cancer

International Journal of Urology

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 5-11

  Ridout, Ashley J ^a,b   Kasivisvanathan, Veeru ^a,b   Emberton, Mark ^a,b   Moore, Caroline M ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON HOSPITALS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging; Prostate cancer; Targeted biopsy

Indexed keywords

BIOPSY TECHNIQUE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; REVIEW; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS;

MULTIPARAMETRIC MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PROSTATE CANCER; TARGETED BIOPSY;

BIOPSY, NEEDLE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84891561218     PISSN: 09198172     EISSN: 14422042     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/iju.12259     Document Type: Review

References (58)

1. Cancer Research UK. [Cited 20 Feb 2013.] Available from URL: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/world/prostate-cancer-world/
2. Center MM, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulent J etal. International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur. Urol. 2012; 61: 1079-1092.
3. Postma R, Schröder FH, van Leenders GJ etal. Cancer detection and cancer characteristics in the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer (ERSPC) - section Rotterdam. A comparison of two rounds of screening. Eur. Urol. 2007; 52: 89-97.
4. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ etal. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N. Engl. J. Med. 2009; 360: 1320-1328.
5. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage t1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994; 271: 368-374.
6. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int. J. Cancer 2010; 127: 2893-2917.
7. Palmerola R, Smith P, Elliot V etal. The digital rectal examination (DRE) remains important - outcomes from a contemporary cohort of men undergoing an initial 12-18 core prostate needle biopsy. Can. J. Urol. 2012; 19: 6542-6547.
8. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J. Urol. 1989; 142: 71-74; discussion 74-5.
9. Stamey TA. Making the most out of six systematic sextant biopsies. Urology 1995; 45: 2-12.
10. Elabbady AA, Khedr MM. Extended 12-core prostate biopsy increases both the detection of prostate cancer and the accuracy of Gleason score. Eur. Urol. 2006; 49: 49-53; discussion 53.
11. Borboroglu PG, Comer SW, Riffenburgh RH, Amling CL. Extensive repeat transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in patients with previous benign sextant biopsies. J. Urol. 2000; 163: 158-162.
12. Walz J, Graefen M, Chun FK etal. High incidence of prostate cancer detected by saturation biopsy after previous negative biopsy series. Eur. Urol. 2006; 50: 498-505.
13. Haffner J, Lemaitre L, Puech P etal. Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. BJU Int. 2011; 108 (8 Pt 2): E171-178.
14. Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y etal. Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J. Urol. 2013; 189 (1 Suppl): S12-18.
15. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M etal. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur. Urol. 2011; 59: 61-71.
16. King CR, McNeal JE, Gill H, Presti JC. Extended prostate biopsy scheme improves reliability of Gleason grading: implications for radiotherapy patients. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2004; 59: 386-391.
17. Duffield AS, Lee TK, Miyamoto H, Carter HB, Epstein JI. Radical prostatectomy findings in patients in whom active surveillance of prostate cancer fails. J. Urol. 2009; 182: 2274-2278.
18. Igel TC, Knight MK, Young PR etal. Systematic transperineal ultrasound guided template biopsy of the prostate in patients at high risk. J. Urol. 2001; 165: 1575-1579.
19. Furuno T, Demura T, Kaneta T etal. Difference of cancer core distribution between first and repeat biopsy: in patients diagnosed by extensive transperineal ultrasound guided template prostate biopsy. Prostate 2004; 58: 76-81.
20. Merrick GS, Gutman S, Andreini H etal. Prostate cancer distribution in patients diagnosed by transperineal template-guided saturation biopsy. Eur. Urol. 2007; 52: 715-723.
21. Epstein JI, Sanderson H, Carter HB, Scharfstein DO. Utility of saturation biopsy to predict insignificant cancer at radical prostatectomy. Urology 2005; 66: 356-360.
22. Barzell WE, Melamed MR, Cathcart P, Moore CM, Ahmed HU, Emberton M. Identifying candidates for active surveillance: an evaluation of the repeat biopsy strategy for men with favorable risk prostate cancer. J. Urol. 2012; 188: 762-767.
23. Taira AV, Merrick GS, Bennett A etal. Transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy as a staging procedure to select patients best suited for active surveillance. Am. J. Clin. Oncol. 2013; 36: 116-120.
24. Lecornet E, Ahmed HU, Hu Y etal. The accuracy of different biopsy strategies for the detection of clinically important prostate cancer: a computer simulation. J. Urol. 2012; 188: 974-980.
25. Moore CM, Allen C, Emberton M. The role of MRI in active surveillance. In: Klothz L (ed.). Active Surveillance for Localized Prostate Cancer: A New Paradigm for Clinical Management, Current Clinical Urology. Springer Science & Business Media, New York, 2012; 67-80.
26. Türkbey B, Bernardo M, Merino MJ, Wood BJ, Pinto PA, Choyke PL. MRI of localized prostate cancer: coming of age in the PSA era. Diagn. Interv. Radiol. 2012; 18: 34-45.
27. Turkbey B, Choyke PL. Multiparametric MRI and prostate cancer diagnosis and risk stratification. Curr. Opin. Urol. 2012; 22: 310-315.
28. Roethke MC, Lichy MP, Jurgschat L etal. Tumorsize dependent detection rate of endorectal MRI of prostate cancer - a histopathologic correlation with whole-mount sections in 70 patients with prostate cancer. Eur. J. Radiol. 2011; 79: 189-195.
29. White S, Hricak H, Forstner R etal. Prostate cancer: effect of postbiopsy hemorrhage on interpretation of MR images. Radiology 1995; 195: 385-390.
30. Ahmed HU, Kirkham A, Arya M etal. Is it time to consider a role for MRI before prostate biopsy? Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2009; 6: 197-206.
31. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C etal. Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur. Urol. 2011; 59: 477-494.
32. Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V, Eggener S etal. Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an international working group. Eur. Urol. 2013; doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.030.
33. Robertson NL, Hu Y, Ahmed HU, Freeman A, Barratt D, Emberton M. Prostate cancer risk inflation as a consequence of image-targeted biopsy of the prostate: a computer simulation study. Eur. Urol. 2013; doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.12.057.
34. Villers A, Puech P, Mouton D, Leroy X, Ballereau C, Lemaitre L. Dynamic contrast enhanced, pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging of localized prostate cancer for predicting tumor volume: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. J. Urol. 2006; 176 (6 Pt 1): 2432-2437.
35. Villeirs GM, De Meerleer GO, De Visschere PJ, Fonteyne VH, Verbaeys AC, Oosterlinck W. Combined magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy in the assessment of high grade prostate carcinoma in patients with elevated PSA: a single-institution experience of 356 patients. Eur. J. Radiol. 2011; 77: 340-345.
36. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ etal. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 2011; 259: 453-461.
37. Somford DM, Hoeks CM, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA etal. Evaluation of diffusion-weighted MR imaging at inclusion in an active surveillance protocol for low-risk prostate cancer. Invest. Radiol. 2013; 48: 152-157.
38. Rastinehad AR, Baccala AA, Chung PH etal. D'Amico risk stratification correlates with degree of suspicion of prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J. Urol. 2011; 185: 815-820.
39. Lee SH, Chung MS, Kim JH, Oh YT, Rha KH, Chung BH. Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in men with previously negative prostate biopsy results. J. Endourol. 2012; 26: 787-791.
40. Sciarra A, Panebianco V, Ciccariello M etal. Value of magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging for detecting prostate cancer foci in men with prior negative biopsy. Clin. Cancer Res. 2010; 16: 1875-1883.
41. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Hoeks C etal. Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. J. Urol. 2010; 183: 520-527.
42. Schwab SA, Kuefner MA, Adamietz B etal. MRI-guided core biopsy of the prostate in the supine position-introduction of a simplified technique using large-bore magnet systems. Eur. Radiol. 2013; 23: 1415-1419.
43. Kasivisvanathan V, Dufour R, Moore CM etal. Transperineal magnetic resonance image-targeted prostate biopsy versus transperineal template prostate biopsy in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. J. Urol. 2013; 189: 860-866.
44. Miyagawa T, Ishikawa S, Kimura T etal. Real-time virtual sonography for navigation during targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging data. Int. J. Urol. 2010; 17: 855-860.
45. Hadaschik BA, Kuru TH, Tulea C etal. A novel stereotactic prostate biopsy system integrating pre-interventional magnetic resonance imaging and live ultrasound fusion. J. Urol. 2011; 186: 2214-2220.
46. Nagarajan R, Margolis D, Raman S etal. MR spectroscopic imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging of prostate cancer with Gleason scores. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2012; 36: 697-703.
47. Ukimura O, Hirahara N, Fujihara A etal. Technique for a hybrid system of real-time transrectal ultrasound with preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in the guidance of targeted prostate biopsy. Int. J. Urol. 2010; 17: 890-893.
48. Labanaris AP, Zugor V, Smiszek R, Nützel R, Kühn R, Engelhard K. Guided e-MRI prostate biopsy can solve the discordance between gleason score biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2010; 28: 943-946.
49. van de Ven WJ, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Hambrock T, Barentsz JO, Huisman HJ. Simulated required accuracy of image registration tools for targeting high-grade cancer components with prostate biopsies. Eur. Radiol. 2013; 23: 1401-1407.
50. Pinto PA, Chung PH, Rastinehad AR etal. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J. Urol. 2011; 186: 1281-1285.
51. Delongchamps NB, Peyromaure M, Schull A etal. Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer detection: comparison of random and targeted biopsies. J. Urol. 2013; 189: 493-499.
52. Song S, Tokuda J, Tuncali K, Tempany C, Zhang E, Hata N. Development and preliminary evaluation of a motorized needle guide template for mri-guided targeted prostate biopsy. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 2013; doi: 10.1109/TBME.2013.2240301.
53. DiMaio SP, Pieper S, Chinzei K etal. Robot-assisted needle placement in open MRI: system architecture, integration and validation. Comput. Aided Surg. 2007; 12: 15-24.
54. Seifabadi R, Cho NB, Song SE etal. Accuracy study of a robotic system for MRI-guided prostate needle placement. Int. J. Med. Robot. 2012; doi: 10.1002/rcs.1440.
55. Long JA, Hungr N, Baumann M etal. Development of a novel robot for transperineal needle based interventions: focal therapy, brachytherapy and prostate biopsies. J. Urol. 2012; 188: 1369-1374.
56. Moore CM, Robertson NL, Arsanious N etal. Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. Eur. Urol. 2013; 63: 125-140.
57. Yerram NK, Volkin D, Turkbey B etal. Low suspicion lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging predict for the absence of high-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2012; 110: E783-788.
58. Ridout AJ, Stevens D, Allen C etal. Radiological progression in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. EAU Conference 2013; Mar 17.