Navigating MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy: Optimizing the process and avoiding technical pitfalls

Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 303-311

  Tay, Kae Jack ^a   Gupta, Rajan T ^a   Rastinehad, Ardeshir R ^b   Tsivian, Efrat ^a   Freedland, Stephen J ^c   Moul, Judd W ^a   Polascik, Thomas J ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

mpMRI; MRI TRUS fusion biopsy; pitfalls; prostate cancer; technique

Indexed keywords

BIOPSY; ERROR; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; HUMAN TISSUE; MODEL; MULTIPARAMETRIC MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; RECOGNITION; REGISTRATION; SKILL; UROLOGIST; IMAGE GUIDED BIOPSY; INTERVENTIONAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY; MALE; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS;

HUMANS; IMAGE-GUIDED BIOPSY; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, INTERVENTIONAL;

EID: 84959555078     PISSN: 14737140     EISSN: 17448328     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1586/14737140.2016.1131155     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. 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 (3): 761-769
2. Rosenkrantz AB, Mendrinos S, Babb JS, et al. Prostate cancer foci detected on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging are histologically distinct from those not detected. J Urol. 2012; 187 (6): 2032-2038
3. Gupta RT, Faridi KF, Singh AA, et al. Comparing 3-T multiparametric MRI and the Partin tables to predict organ-confined prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol. 2014; 32 (8): 1292-1299
4. 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 (1): 67-74
5. Turkbey B, Merino MJ, Gallardo EC, et al. 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 Imaging. 2014; 39 (6): 1443-1448
6. 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 (4): 809-815
7. 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 (1): 86-91
8. Vourganti S, Rastinehad A, Yerram NK, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound fusion biopsy detect prostate cancer in patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies. J Urol. 2012; 188 (6): 2152-2157
9. 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 (5): 713-719
10. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA. 2015; 313 (4): 390-397
11. Le JD, Stephenson S, Brugger M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion biopsy for prediction of final prostate pathology. J Urol. 2014; 192 (5): 1367-1373
12. Salami SS, Ben-Levi E, Yaskiv O, et al. In patients with a previous negative prostate biopsy and a suspicious lesion on magnetic resonance imaging, is a 12-core biopsy still necessary in addition to a targeted biopsy? BJU Int. 2015; 115 (4): 562-570
13. 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 (4): 1380-1386
14. Delongchamps NB, Lefevre A, Bouazza N, et al. Detection of significant prostate cancer with magnetic resonance targeted biopsies-should transrectal ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging fusion guided biopsies alone be a standard of care? J Urol. 2015; 193 (4): 1198-1204
15. Passoni NM, Polascik TJ. Targeted prostate biopsies: the complexity behind a simple concept. Eur Urol. 2014; 66 (1): 30-31
16. Ko YH, Song PH, Moon KH, et al. The optimal timing of post-prostate biopsy magnetic resonance imaging to guide nerve-sparing surgery. Asian J Androl. 2014; 16 (2): 280-284
17. Qayyum A, Coakley FV, Lu Y, et al. Organ-confined prostate cancer: effect of prior transrectal biopsy on endorectal MRI and MR spectroscopic imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004; 183 (4): 1079-1083
18. White S, Hricak H, Forstner R, et al. Prostate cancer: effect of postbiopsy hemorrhage on interpretation of MR images. Radiology. 1995; 195 (2): 385-390
19. Latifoltojar A, Dikaios N, Ridout A, et al. Evolution of multi-parametric MRI quantitative parameters following transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2015; 18: 343-351
20. Barrett T, Vargas HA, Akin O, et al. Value of the hemorrhage exclusion sign on T1-weighted prostate MR images for the detection of prostate cancer. Radiology. 2012; 263 (3): 751-757
21. Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y, et al. Prostate cancer: relationships between postbiopsy hemorrhage and tumor detectability at MR diagnosis. Radiology. 2008; 248 (2): 531-539
22. Gupta RT, Kauffman CR, Polascik TJ, et al. The state of prostate MRI in 2013. Oncology (Williston Park). 2013; 27 (4): 262-270
23. Chang KJ, Kamel IR, Macura KJ, et al. 3.0-T MR imaging of the abdomen: comparison with 1.5 T. Radiographics. 2008; 28 (7): 1983-1998
24. Hricak H, Choyke PL, Eberhardt SC, et al. Imaging prostate cancer: a multidisciplinary perspective. Radiology. 2007; 243 (1): 28-53
25. Schnall MD, Lenkinski RE, Pollack HM, et al. Prostate: MR imaging with an endorectal surface coil. Radiology. 1989; 172 (2): 570-574
26. Shah ZK, Elias SN, Abaza R, et al. Performance comparison of 1.5-T endorectal coil MRI with 3.0-T nonendorectal coil MRI in patients with prostate cancer. Acad Radiol. 2015; 22 (4): 467-474
27. Radiology; ACo. MR Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.0 [cited 2015 Sep 2 ]. Available from: http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/PIRADS/
28. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ, et al. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology. 2011; 259 (2): 453-461
29. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012; 22 (4): 746-757
30. Gaziev G, Wadhwa K, Barrett T, et al. Defining the learning curve for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate using MRI-transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) fusion-guided transperineal prostate biopsies as a validation tool. BJU Int. 2016; 117 (1): 80-86
31. Garcia-Reyes K, Passoni NM, Palmeri ML, et al. Detection of prostate cancer with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI): effect of dedicated reader education on accuracy and confidence of index and anterior cancer diagnosis. Abdom Imaging. 2015; 40 (1): 134-142
32. Rais-Bahrami S, Siddiqui MM, Turkbey B, et al. Utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging suspicion levels for detecting prostate cancer. J Urol. 2013; 190 (5): 1721-1727
33. Hamoen EH, de Rooij M, Witjes JA, et al. Use of the prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) for prostate cancer detection with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a diagnostic meta-Analysis. Eur Urol. 2015; 67 (6): 1112-1121
34. Baco E, Rud E, Ukimura O, et al. Effect of targeted biopsy guided by elastic image fusion of MRI with 3D-TRUS on diagnosis of anterior prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2014; 32 (8): 1300-1307
35. Baco E, Ukimura O, Rud E, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-transectal ultrasound image-fusion biopsies accurately characterize the index tumor: correlation with step-sectioned radical prostatectomy specimens in 135 patients. Eur Urol. 2015; 67 (4): 787-794
36. 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 MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial. Eur Urol. 2014; 66 (2): 343-351
37. Cornud F, Brolis L, Delongchamps NB, et al. TRUS-MRI image registration: a paradigm shift in the diagnosis of significant prostate cancer. Abdom Imaging. 2013; 38 (6): 1447-1463
38. Nir G, Sahebjavaher RS, Kozlowski P, et al. Model-based registration of ex vivo and in vivo MRI of the prostate using elastography. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2013; 32 (6): 1068-1080
39. Tsivian M, Qi P, Kimura M, et al. The effect of noise-cancelling headphones or music on pain perception and anxiety in men undergoing transrectal prostate biopsy. Urology. 2012; 79 (1): 32-36
40. Martin PR, Cool DW, Romagnoli C, et al. 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; 41 (7): 073504
41. Hong CW, Rais-Bahrami S, Walton-Diaz A, et al. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound (MRI-US) fusion-guided prostate biopsies obtained from axial and sagittal approaches. BJU Int. 2015; 115 (5): 772-779