Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: To report outcomes of MRI-ultrasound fusion (MRF-TB) and 12-core systematic biopsy (SB) over a 26-month period in men with prior negative prostate biopsy. METHODS: Between 6/12 and 8/14, 210 men presenting to our institution for prostate biopsy with >/=1 prior negative biopsy underwent multiparametric MRI followed by MRF-TB and SB and were entered into a prospective database. Clinical characteristics, MRI suspicion scores (mSS), and biopsy results were queried from the database and the detection rates of Gleason >/=7 prostate cancer (PCa) and overall PCa were compared between biopsy techniques using McNemar's test. RESULTS: Fifty-three (31%) of 172 men meeting inclusion criteria (mean age 65+/-8 years; mean PSA 8.9+/-8.9) were found to have PCa. MRF-TB and SB had overall cancer detection rates (CDR) of 23.8% and 18.0% (p=0.12), respectively, and CDR for Gleason score (GS)>/=7 disease of 16.3% and 9.3% (p=0.01), respectively. Of 31 men with GS>/=7 disease, MRF-TB detected 28 (90.3%) while SB detected 16 (51.6%) (p<0.001). Using UCSF-CAPRA criteria, only one man was re-stratified from low-risk to higher risk based on SB results compared to MRF-TB alone. Among men with mSS<4, 80% of detected cancers were low-risk by UCSF-CAPRA criteria. CONCLUSIONS: In men with previous negative biopsies and persistent suspicion for PCa, SB contributes little to the detection of GS>/=7 disease by MRF-TB, and avoidance of SB bears consideration. Based on the low likelihood of detecting GS>/=7 cancer and overall low-risk features of PCa in men with mSS<4, limiting biopsy to men with mSS>/=4 warrants further investigation.

PURPOSE: Optimization of prostate biopsy requires addressing the shortcomings of standard systematic transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy including false negative rates, incorrect risk stratification, detection of clinically insignificant disease, and the need for repetitive biopsy. MRI is an evolving noninvasive imaging modality that increases the accurate localization of prostate cancer (PCa) at the time of biopsy, thereby enhancing clinical risk assessment, and improving the ability to appropriately counsel patients regarding therapy. The purpose of this review is to 1) summarize the various sequences that comprise a prostate multiparametric MRI exam along with its performance characteristics in cancer detection, localization and reporting standards, 2) evaluate potential applications of MRI targeting in prostate biopsy among men with no previous biopsy, a negative previous biopsy, and those with low stage cancer and 3) describe the techniques of MRI-targeted biopsy and their comparative study outcomes MATERIALS AND METHODS: A bibliographic search covering the period up to October, 2013 was conducted using MEDLINE(R)/PubMed(R). Articles were reviewed and categorized based on which of the three objectives of this review was addressed. Data was extracted, analyzed, and summarized. RESULTS: Mp-MRI consists of anatomic T2-weighted imaging coupled with at least 2 functional imaging techniques and has demonstrated improved PCa detection sensitivity up to 80% in the peripheral zone and 81% in the transition zone. A PCa MRI suspicion score has been developed and is depicted using the Likert or PI-RADS scale for better standardization of MRI interpretation and reporting. Among men with no previous biopsy, MRI increases the frequency of significant cancer detection to 50% in low risk and 71% in high risk patients. In low risk men, the negative predictive valve of a combination of negative MRI with prostate volume parameters is nearly 98%, suggesting a potential role in avoiding a biopsy and reducing overdetection/overtreatment. Among men with previous negative biopsy, 72-87% of cancers detected by MRI guidance are clinically significant. Among men with known low risk cancer, repeat biopsy by MR-targeting demonstrates a high likelihood of confirming low risk disease in low suspicion score lesions and for upgrading in high suspicion score lesions. Techniques of MRI-targeted biopsy include visual estimation TRUS-guided biopsy, software co-registered MRI-US TRUS-guided biopsy, and in-bore MRI-guided biopsy. Although the improvement in accuracy and efficiency of visual estimation biopsy compared to systematic appears limited, both co-registered MRI-US biopsy and in-bore MRI-guided biopsy appears to increase cancer detection rates in conjunction with increasing suspicion score. CONCLUSIONS: Use of MRI for targeting prostate biopsies has potential to reduce the sampling error associate with conventional biopsy by providing better disease localization and sampling. More accurate risk stratification through improved cancer sampling may impact upon therapeutic decision-making. Optimal clinical application of MRI-targeted biopsy remains under investigation.

BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence supports the use of magnetic resonance (MR)-targeted prostate biopsy. The optimal method for such biopsy remains undefined, however. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare targeted biopsy outcomes between MR imaging (MRI)-ultrasound fusion and visual targeting. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From June 2012 to March 2013, prospective targeted biopsy was performed in 125 consecutive men with suspicious regions identified on prebiopsy 3-T MRI consisting of T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic-contrast enhanced sequences. INTERVENTION: Two MRI-ultrasound fusion targeted cores per target were performed by one operator using the ei-Nav|Artemis system. Targets were then blinded, and a second operator took two visually targeted cores and a 12-core biopsy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Biopsy information yield was compared between targeting techniques and to 12-core biopsy. Results were analyzed using the McNemar test. Multivariate analysis was performed using binomial logistic regression. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Among 172 targets, fusion biopsy detected 55 (32.0%) cancers and 35 (20.3%) Gleason sum >/=7 cancers compared with 46 (26.7%) and 26 (15.1%), respectively, using visual targeting (p=0.1374, p=0.0523). Fusion biopsy provided informative nonbenign histology in 77 targets compared with 60 by visual (p=0.0104). Targeted biopsy detected 75.0% of all clinically significant cancers and 86.4% of Gleason sum >/=7 cancers detected on standard biopsy. On multivariate analysis, fusion performed best among smaller targets. The study is limited by lack of comparison with whole-gland specimens and sample size. Furthermore, cancer detection on visual targeting is likely higher than in community settings, where experience with this technique may be limited. CONCLUSIONS: Fusion biopsy was more often histologically informative than visual targeting but did not increase cancer detection. A trend toward increased detection with fusion biopsy was observed across all study subsets, suggesting a need for a larger study size. Fusion targeting improved accuracy for smaller lesions. Its use may reduce the learning curve necessary for visual targeting and improve community adoption of MR-targeted biopsy.