Abstract
Purpose
To investigate the positive biopsy rate of MRI-guided biopsy (MR-GB) in a routine clinical setting, identify factors predictive for positive biopsy findings and to report about the clinical significance of the diagnosed tumors.
Methods
Patients with at least one negative trans-rectal-ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-GB), persistently elevated or rising serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) and at least one lesion suspicious for PCa on diagnostic 1.5 Tesla endorectal coil MRI (eMR) were included. Biopsies were carried out using a 1.5 Tesla MRI and an 18 G biopsy gun. Clinical information and biopsy results were collected; logistic regression analysis was carried out. Definite pathology reports of patients with diagnosis of PCa and subsequent radical prostatectomy (RP) were analyzed for criteria of clinical significance.
Results
One hundred patients were included, mean number of previous biopsies was 2 (range 1–9), mean PSA at time of biopsy was 11.7 ng/ml (1.0–65.0), and mean prostate volume was 46.7 ccm (range 13–183).
In 52/100 (52.0%) patients, PCa was detected. Out of 52 patients, 27 patients with a positive biopsy underwent RP, 20 patients radiation therapy, and 5 patients active surveillance. In total, 80.8% of the patients revealed a clinically significant PCa.
In univariate regression analysis, only serum PSA levels were predictive for a positive biopsy result. Number of preceding negative biopsies was not associated with the likelihood of a positive biopsy result.
Conclusions
MR-GB shows a high detection rate of clinically significant PCa in patients with previous negative TRUS-GB and persisting suspicion for PCa.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ahmed HU, Kirkham A, Arya M et al (2009) Is it time to consider a role for MRI before prostate biopsy? Nat Rev Clin Oncol 6:197–206
Amsellem-Ouazana D, Younes P, Conquy S et al (2005) Negative prostatic biopsies in patients with a high risk of prostate cancer. Is the combination of endorectal MRI and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging (MRSI) a useful tool? A preliminary study. Eur Urol 47:582–586
Anastasiadis AG, Lichy MP, Nagele U et al (2006) MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate increases diagnostic performance in men with elevated or increasing PSA levels after previous negative TRUS biopsies. Eur Urol 50:738–748
Beyersdorff D, Winkel A, Hamm B et al (2005) MR imaging-guided prostate biopsy with a closed MR unit at 1.5 T: initial results. Radiology 234:576–581
Colleselli D, Schilling D, Lichy MP et al (2010) Topographical sensitivity and specificity of endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer detection. Urol Int 84:388–394
Deliveliotis C, Varkarakis J, Albanis S et al (2002) Biopsies of the transitional zone of the prostate. Should it be done on a routine basis, when and why? Urol Int 68:113–117
Djavan B, Milani S, Remzi M (2005) Prostate biopsy: who, how and when. An update. Can J Urol 12(Suppl 1):44–48
Engelhard K, Hollenbach HP, Kiefer B et al (2006) Prostate biopsy in the supine position in a standard 1.5-T scanner under real time MR-imaging control using a MR-compatible endorectal biopsy device. Eur Radiol 16:1237–1243
Fradet V, Kurhanewicz J, Cowan JE et al (2010) Prostate cancer managed with active surveillance: role of anatomic MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 256:176–183
Hambrock T, Futterer JJ, Huisman HJ et al (2008) Thirty-two-channel coil 3T magnetic resonance-guided biopsies of prostate tumor suspicious regions identified on multimodality 3T magnetic resonance imaging: technique and feasibility. Invest Radiol 43:686–694
Hambrock T, Somford DM, Hoeks C et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. J Urol 183:520–527
Heidenreich A, Aus G, Bolla M et al (2008) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol 53:68–80
Labanaris AP, Zugor V, Smiszek R et al (2010) Guided e-MRI prostate biopsy can solve the discordance between Gleason score biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Magn Reson Imaging 28:943–946
Lichy MP, Pintaske J, Kottke R et al (2005) 3D proton MR spectroscopic imaging of prostate cancer using a standard spine coil at 1.5 T in clinical routine: a feasibility study. Eur Radiol 15:653–660
Lujan M, Paez A, Santonja C et al (2004) Prostate cancer detection and tumor characteristics in men with multiple biopsy sessions. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 7:238–242
McNeal JE (1969) Origin and development of carcinoma in the prostate. Cancer 23:24–34
Norberg M, Egevad L, Holmberg L et al (1997) The sextant protocol for ultrasound-guided core biopsies of the prostate underestimates the presence of cancer. Urology 50:562–566
Pallwein L, Mitterberger M, Pelzer A et al (2008) Ultrasound of prostate cancer: recent advances. Eur Radiol 18:707–715
Park BK, Lee HM, Kim CK et al (2008) Lesion localization in patients with a previous negative transrectal ultrasound biopsy and persistently elevated prostate specific antigen level using diffusion-weighted imaging at three Tesla before rebiopsy. Invest Radiol 43:789–793
Roethke MC, Lichy MP, Jurgschat L, et al. (2010) 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
Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ et al (2009) Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 360:1320–1328
Sciarra A, Panebianco V, Ciccariello M et al (2010) 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 16:1875–1883
Umbehr M, Bachmann LM, Held U et al (2009) Combined magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 55:575–590
Uzzo RG, Wei JT, Waldbaum RS et al (1995) The influence of prostate size on cancer detection. Urology 46:831–836
Yuen JS, Thng CH, Tan PH et al (2004) Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for the detection of tumor foci in men with prior negative transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy. J Urol 171:1482–1486
Zackrisson B, Aus G, Bergdahl S et al (2004) The risk of finding focal cancer (less than 3 mm) remains high on re-biopsy of patients with persistently increased prostate specific antigen but the clinical significance is questionable. J Urol 171:1500–1503
Zakian KL, Sircar K, Hricak H et al (2005) Correlation of proton MR spectroscopic imaging with gleason score based on step-section pathologic analysis after radical prostatectomy. Radiology 234:804–814
Zangos S, Eichler K, Engelmann K et al (2005) MR-guided transgluteal biopsies with an open low-field system in patients with clinically suspected prostate cancer: technique and preliminary results. Eur Radiol 15:174–182
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Miriam Germann for critically proof reading and reviewing the manuscript.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Roethke, M., Anastasiadis, A.G., Lichy, M. et al. MRI-guided prostate biopsy detects clinically significant cancer: analysis of a cohort of 100 patients after previous negative TRUS biopsy. World J Urol 30, 213–218 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0675-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0675-2