Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Which scores need a core? An evaluation of MR-targeted biopsy yield by PIRADS score across different biopsy indications

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 21, pages 573–578 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Introduction

Magnetic resonance imaging is being widely adopted in the clinical management of prostate cancer. The correlation of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) to the presence of cancer has been established but studies have primarily evaluated this in a single clinical setting. This study aims to characterize the correlation of PIRADS score to the diagnosis of cancer on fusion biopsy among men who are undergoing primary biopsy, those who have had a previous negative biopsy or men on active surveillance.

Materials & Methods

A consecutive sample of men undergoing US-MR biopsy at a single academic institution from 2014 to 2017 were included in this retrospective study. Men were stratified into groups according to their clinical history: biopsy-naïve, previous negative transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy or on active surveillance. The correlation of PIRADS score to the diagnosis of any and clinically significant cancer (Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4) was determined.

Results

A total of 255 patients with 365 discrete lesions were analyzed. PIRADS score 1–2, 3, 4 and 5 yielded any prostate cancer in 7.7, 29.7, 42.3 and 82.4% of the cases, respectively, across all indications while clinically significant cancer was found in 0, 8.9, 21.4 and 62.7%, respectively. The area under the receiver operative curves for the diagnosis of any and significant cancer was 0.69 (95%CI: 0.64–0.74) and 0.74 (95%CI: 0.69–0.79) respectively. Men who have had a previous negative biopsy had lower detection rates for any prostate cancer for PIRADS 3 and 4 lesions compared to those that were biopsy-naïve or on active surveillance.

Conclusion

Cancer detection rates are significantly associated with PIRADS score. Biopsy yields differ across biopsy indications which should be considered when selecting a PIRADS score threshold for biopsy. Biopsy of PIRADS 3 lesions could potentially be avoided in men who have previously undergone a negative TRUS biopsy.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389:815–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George AK, Rothwax J, Shakir N, et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA. 2015;313:390–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Verma S, Choyke PL, Eberhardt SC, Oto A, Tempany CM, Turkbey B, et al. The Current state of MR imaging–targeted biopsy techniques for detection of prostate cancer. Radiology. 2017;285:343–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS Prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69:16–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH. Diagnostic performance of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 for detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2017;72:177–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Liddell H, Jyoti R, Haxhimolla HZ. mp-MRI prostate characterised PIRADS 3 lesions are associated with a low risk of clinically significant prostate cancer - a retrospective review of 92 biopsied PIRADS 3 lesions. Curr Urol. 2014;8:96–100.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Pokorny MR, de Rooij M, Duncan E, Schröder FH, Parkinson R, Barentsz JO, et al. Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound– guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent mr-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. Eur Urol. 2014;66:22–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ting F, Van Leeuwen PJ, Thompson J, Shnier R, Moses D, Delprado W, et al. Assessment of the performance of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy against a combined targeted plus systematic biopsy approach using 24-core transperineal template saturation mapping prostate biopsy. Prostate Cancer. 2016;2016:3794738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hansen NL, Kesch C, Barrett T, Koo B, Radtke JP, Bonekamp D, et al. Multicentre evaluation of targeted and systematic biopsies using magnetic resonance and ultrasound image-fusion guided transperineal prostate biopsy in patients with a previous negative biopsy. BJU Int. 2016;120:631–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. NiMhurchu E, O’Kelly F, Murphy IG, Lavelle LP, Collins CD, Lennon G, et al. Predictive value of PI-RADS classification in MRI-directed transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. Clin Radiol. 2016;71:375–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, Hooft L, Bosch J, Reitsma HB, Barentsz JO, et al. Comparing three different techniques for magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsies: a systematic review of in-bore versus magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion versus cognitive registration. is there a preferred technique? Eur Urol. 2017;71:517–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Metzger GJ, Kalavagunta C, Spilseth B, Bolan PJ, Li X, Hutter D, et al. Detection of prostate cancer: quantitative multiparametric mr imaging models developed using registered correlative histopathology. Radiology. 2016;279:805–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44:837–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Venderink W, van Luijtelaar A, Bomers JG, van der Leest M, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, Barentsz JO, et al. Results of targeted biopsy in men with magnetic resonance imaging lesions classified equivocal, likely or highly likely to be clinically significant prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2017;73;3:353–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rosenkrantz AB, Verma S, Choyke P, Eberhardt SC, Eggener SE, Gaitonde K, et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a prior negative biopsy: a consensus statement by AUA and SAR. J Urol. 2016;196:1613–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Loeb S, Bjurlin M, Nicholson J, Tammela TL, Penson D, Carter HB, et al. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014;65:1046–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pokorny MR, de Rooij M, Duncan E, Schroder FH, Parkinson R, Barentsz JO, et al. Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies. Eur Urol. 2014;66:22–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Siddiqui MM, George AK, Rubin R, Rais-Bahrami S, Parnes HL,Merino MJ, et al. Efficiency of prostate cancer diagnosis by mr/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy vs standard extended-sextant biopsy for MR-visible lesions. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108:djw039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Recabal P, Assel M, Sjoberg DD, Lee D, Laudone VP, Touijer K, et al. The efficacy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in risk classification for patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. J Urol. 2016;196:374–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gaziev G, Wadhwa K, Barrett T, Koo BC, Gallagher FA, Serrao E, 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;117:80–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Polanec S, Helbich TH, Bickel H, Pinker-Domenig K, Georg D, Shariat SF, et al. Head-to-head comparison of PI-RADS v2 and PI-RADS v1. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85:1125–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kasel-Seibert M, Lehmann T, Aschenbach R, Guettler FV, Abubrig M, Grimm M-O, et al. Assessment of PI-RADS v2 for the Detection of Prostate Cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85:726–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Auer T, Edlinger M, Bektic J, Nagele U, Herrmann T, Schäfer G, et al. Performance of PI-RADS version 1 versus version 2 regarding the relation with histopathological results. World J Urol. 2017;35:687–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Pessoa RR, Viana PC, Mattedi RL, Guglielmetti GB, Cordeiro MD, Coelho RF, et al. Value of 3-Tesla multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy for improved risk stratification in patients considered for active surveillance. BJU Int. 2017;119:535–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

NJS has received support from the Cloverfields Foundation and The Institute for Prostate and Urologic Cancers (University of Minnesota).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Niranjan J. Sathianathen, Badrinath R. Konety, Ayman Soubra, Christopher J. Weight, Maria A. Ordonez & Christopher A. Warlick

  2. Department of Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Gregory J. Metzger & Benjamin Spilseth

  3. Department of Pathology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Paari Murugan

Authors
  1. Niranjan J. Sathianathen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Badrinath R. Konety
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ayman Soubra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gregory J. Metzger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Benjamin Spilseth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Paari Murugan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Christopher J. Weight
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Maria A. Ordonez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Christopher A. Warlick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Niranjan J. Sathianathen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sathianathen, N., Konety, B., Soubra, A. et al. Which scores need a core? An evaluation of MR-targeted biopsy yield by PIRADS score across different biopsy indications. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 21, 573–578 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-018-0065-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-018-0065-6

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links