Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy: A systematic review

European Urology

Volumn 68, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 8-19

  Valerio, Massimo ^a,b,c   Donaldson, Ian ^a,b   Emberton, Mark ^a,b   Ehdaie, Behfar ^d   Hadaschik, Boris A ^e   Marks, Leonard S ^f   Mozer, Pierre ^g,h   Rastinehad, Ardeshir R ⁱ   Ahmed, Hashim U ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON HOSPITALS   (United Kingdom)

^c LAUSANNE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Switzerland)

^d MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^f UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^g PITIÉ SALPÊTRIÈRE HOSPITAL   (France)

^h UNIVERSITÉ PIERRE ET MARIE CURIE   (France)

ⁱ DONALD AND BARBARA ZUCKER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT HOFSTRA NORTHWELL   (United States)

Author keywords

Computer assisted; Image processing; Image guided biopsy; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostate neoplasms; Software; Targeted biopsy

Indexed keywords

CANCER DIAGNOSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DATA BASE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; HUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SELECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE BIOPSY; PROSTATE CANCER; REVIEW; RISK FACTOR; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TRANSRECTAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; ULTRASOUND FUSION TARGETED BIOPSY; VISUAL INFORMATION; ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASONOGRAPHY; IMAGE GUIDED BIOPSY; LARGE CORE NEEDLE BIOPSY; MALE; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATE; PROSTATE TUMOR;

BIOPSY, LARGE-CORE NEEDLE; ENDOSONOGRAPHY; HUMANS; IMAGE-GUIDED BIOPSY; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; PROSTATE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84934271994     PISSN: 03022838     EISSN: 18737560     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.026     Document Type: Review

References (52)

1. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2012;367:203-13.
2. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2014;370:932-42.
3. Shaw GL, Thomas BC, Dawson SN, et al. Identification of pathologically insignificant prostate cancer is not accurate in unscreened men. Br J Cancer 2014;110:2405-11.
4. 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;188:762-7.
5. Abdollah F, Scattoni V, Raber M, et al. The role of transrectal saturation biopsy in tumour localization: pathological correlation after retropubic radical prostatectomy and implication for focal ablative therapy. BJU Int 2011;108:366-71.
6. Ahmed HU, Emberton M, Kepner G, Kepner J. A biomedical engineering approach to mitigate the errors of prostate biopsy. Nat Rev Urol 2012;9:227-31.
7. Sonn GA, Margolis DJ, Marks LS. Target detection: magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy. Urol Oncol 2014;32:903-11.
8. Moore CM, Robertson NL, Arsanious N, et al. Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2013;63:125-40.
9. Dickinson L, Ahmed HU, Allen C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. Eur Urol 2011;59:477-94.
10. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22:746-57.
11. Turkbey B, Pinto PA, Mani H, et al. Prostate cancer: value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection-histopathologic correlation. Radiology 2010;255:89-99.
12. Thompson JE, Moses D, Shnier R, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging guided diagnostic biopsy detects significant prostate cancer and could reduce unnecessary biopsies and over detection: a prospective study. J Urol 2014;192:67-74.
13. Rud E, Klotz D, Rennesund K, et al. Detection of the index tumor and tumor volume in prostate cancer using T2w andDWMRI alone. BJU Int 2014;114:E32-42.
14. Arumainayagam N, Ahmed HU, Moore CM, et al. Multiparametric MR imaging for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: a validation cohort study with transperineal template prostate mapping as the reference standard. Radiology 2013;268: 761-9.
15. PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews. University of York Centre for Review s and Dissemination Web site. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display-record. asp?ID=CRD42013006734#.U7sRNLHaq8Q.
16. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009;339:b2535.
17. Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V, Eggener S, et al. Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. Eur Urol 2013;64:544-52.
18. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:529-36.
19. Mozer P, Rouprět M, Le Cossec C, et al. First round of targeted biopsies with magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion images compared to conventional ultrasound-guided trans-rectal biopsies for the diagnosis of localised prostate cancer. BJU Int 2015;115:50-7.
20. Delongchamps NB, Peyromaure M, Schull A, et al. Prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer detection: comparison of random and targeted biopsies. J Urol 2013;189:493-9.
21. Sonn GA, Chang E, Natarajan S, et al. Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Eur Urol 2014;65:809-15.
22. Portalez D, Mozer P, Cornud F, et al. Validation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in a cohort of repeat biopsy patients. Eur Urol 2012;62:986-96.
23. Miyagawa T, Ishikawa S, Kimura T, et al. Real-time virtual sonography for navigation during targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging data. Int J Urol 2010;17:855-60.
24. Puech P, Rouviere O, Renard-Penna R, et al. Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy-prospective multicenter study. Radiology 2013;268:461-9.
25. Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, et al. A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MRtargeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial. Eur Urol 2014;66: 343-51.
26. Kuru TH, Roethke MC, Seidenader J, et al. Critical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging targeted, transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal fusion biopsy for detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 2013;190:1380-6.
27. Mouraviev V, Verma S, Kalyanaraman B, et al. The feasibility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for targeted biopsy using novel navigation systems to detect early stage prostate cancer: the preliminary experience. J Endourol 2013;27: 820-5.
28. Fiard G, Hohn N, Descotes JL, Rambeaud JJ, Troccaz J, Long JA. Targeted MRI-guided prostate biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer: initial clinical experience with real-time 3-dimensional transrectal ultrasound guidance and magnetic resonance/transrectal ultrasound image fusion. Urology 2013;81:1372-8.
29. Rastinehad AR, Turkbey B, Salami SS, et al. Improving detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 2014;191:1749-54.
30. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong H, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol 2013;64:713-9.
31. Sonn GA, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, et al. Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion device. J Urol 2013;189:86-91.
32. Rud E, Baco E, Eggesbo HB. MRI and ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy using soft image fusion. Anticancer Res 2012;32:3383-9.
33. Hatcher D, Cohn J, Silvers R, McGuire M.MRfusion prostate biopsies are feasible and useful in a busy urologic practice. J Endourol 2013;27:P1-A470.
34. Ukimura O, Marien A, Palmer S, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging targeted prostate biopsy with 3-dimensional ultrasound tracking system in comparative analysis to systematic random biopsy on 131 consecutive patients with prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 2013;189:e896.
35. Sturch P, Duong K, Kinsella J, et al. Multi-parametric MRI-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsies using Varian brachytherapy software: precision prostate cancer diagnostics. J Urol 2013;189:e518.
36. Kamoi K, Okihara K, Iwata T, Kawauchi A, Miki T. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy for patients with small lesions suspicious for cancer revealed by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Urology 2012;80(Suppl 1):S13.
37. Wadhwa K, Tang S, Axell R, et al. Does MRI-TRUS fusion guided planning improve outcomes of transperineal prostate biopsies?-An early experience [abstract] J Endourol 2012;26:P1-A572.
38. Cool D, Romagnoli C, Izawa J, et al. Enhanced tumour sampling and Gleason grading through fusion of MRI to 3D transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy. J Urol 2012;187:e819-20.
39. Banek S, Kramer U, Alloussi S, et al. Fusion of non-contrast-3 Tesla-MRI and TRUS-imaging: implementation of a new biopsy technique to detect prostate cancer. J Urol 2012;187:e591.
40. Kuru TH, Wadhwa K, Chang RT, et al. Definitions of terms, processes and a minimum dataset for transperineal prostate biopsies: a standardization approach of the Ginsburg Study Group for Enhanced Prostate Diagnostics. BJU Int 2013;112:568-77.
41. Guo Y, Werahera PN, Narayanan R, et al. Image registration accuracy of a 3-dimensional transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy system. J Ultrasound Med 2009;28:1561-8.
42. Hu Y, Ahmed HU, Taylor Z, et al. MR to ultrasound registration for image-guided prostate interventions. Med Image Anal 2012;16: 687-703.
43. Ahmed HU, Arya M, Freeman A, Emberton M. Do low-grade and low-volume prostate cancers bear the hallmarks of malignancy? Lancet Oncol 2012;13:e509-17.
44. Van der Kwast TH, Roobol MJ. Defining the threshold for significant versus insignificant prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol 2013;10:473-82.
45. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994;271:368-74.
46. Stamey TA, Freiha FS, McNeal JE, Redwine EA, Whittemore AS, Schmid HP. Localized prostate cancer. Relationship of tumor volume to clinical significance for treatment of prostate cancer. Cancer 1993;71(Suppl):933-8.
47. Wolters T, Roobol MJ, van Leeuwen PJ, et al. A critical analysis of the tumor volume threshold for clinically insignificant prostate cancer using a data set of a randomized screening trial. J Urol 2011;185:121-5.
48. Simmons LA,AhmedHU,MooreCM, et al. The PICTURE study-prostate imaging (multi-parametric MRI and Prostate HistoScanningTM) comparedto transperineal ultrasound guided biopsy for significantprostate cancer risk evaluation. Contemp Clin Trials 2014;37:69-83.
49. MRC guidelines developing and evaluating complex interventions. Medical Research Council Web site. http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm?d=MRC004871.
50. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Tornberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition-summary document. Ann Oncol 2008;19:614-22.
51. de Rooij M, Crienen S, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM, Grutters JP. Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MRguided targeted biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasoundguided biopsy in diagnosing prostate cancer: a modelling study from a health care perspective. Eur Urol 2014;66:36-43.
52. Willis SR, Ahmed HU, Moore CM, et al. Multiparametric MRI followed by targeted prostate biopsy for men with suspected prostate cancer: a clinical decision analysis. BMJ 2014;4:e004895.