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.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

MRI in prostate cancer diagnosis: do we need to add standard sampling? A review of the last 5 years

Subjects

Abstract

Introduction

In recent years, evidence has accrued to support the introduction of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. The exact role of mpMRI in different settings is not widely agreed. In this review, we look at the use of MRI in three groups of men: biopsy naive men, those with a previous negative biopsy and those with a previous positive biopsy suitable for active surveillance.

Material and methods

An electronic MEDLINE/PubMed search up to 24th January 2018 was performed, using the search terms (prostate cancer OR prostate adenocarcinoma) AND (MRI OR magnetic resonance) AND (biopsy naive OR active surveillance OR prior negative biopsy OR no prior biopsy). Only those studies which reported detection rates of standard biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy, where all men had both an MRI and standard biopsy were included.

Results

In total 34 articles were included (14 biopsy naive, 10 prior negative biopsy, and 10 prior positive biopsy). MRI-targeted biopsy consistently resulted in greater detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, and a lower detection of clinically insignificant prostate cancer, across all three patient populations. This effect was most prominent in men with at least one previous negative biopsy, and least prominent in men on active surveillance. In the presence of a negative mpMRI detection of csPCa found at systematic biopsy ranged from 0 to 20%.

Conclusions

MRI-targeted biopsy is more efficient than standard biopsy in detecting clinically significant disease in men with a positive MRI, and results in less detection of clinically insignificant cancer. In men with a negative MRI, a significant minority of men will have clinically significant cancer detected on systematic biopsy.

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

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boniol M, Boyle P, Autier P, Ruffi A, Perrin P. Critical role of prostate biopsy mortality in the number of years of life gained and lost within a prostate cancer screening programme. BJU Int. 2012;110:1648–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, Santis MD, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71:618–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Stamey TA. Ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the palpably abnormal prostate. J Urol. 1989;142:66–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Eichler K, Hempel S, Wilby J, Myers L, Bachmann LM, Kleijnen J. Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J Urol. 2006;175:1605–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cohen MS, Hanley RS, Kurteva T, Ruthazer R, Silverman ML, Sorcini A, et al. Comparing the gleason prostate biopsy and gleason prostatectomy grading system: the lahey clinic medical center experience and an international meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2008;54:371–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ahmed HU, Bosaily AE, 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;6736:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bjurlin MA, Carter HB, Schellhammer P, Cookson MS, Gomella LG, Troyer D, et al. Optimization of initial prostate biopsy in clinical practice: sampling, labeling and specimen processing. J Urol. 2013;189:2039–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Zaytoun OM, Stephenson AJ, Fareed K, El-Shafei A, Gao T, Levy D, et al. When serial prostate biopsy is recommended: most cancers detected are clinically insignificant. BJU Int. 2012;110:987–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Poon Y, Mccallum W, Henkelman M, Sutcliffe B, Jewett AS. Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate. Radiology. 1985;154:143–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Wegelin O, Melick HHEVan, Hooft L, JLHR Bosch, 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. 2016;71:517–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. NICE. Prostate cancer: protocol for active surveillance. Implementing the NICE guideline on prostate cancer. 2014. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg175.

  13. National Health System (NHS). 2018. www.nhs.uk.

  14. NCCN. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Prostate Cancer. 2017. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls.

  15. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1767–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MGM. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015;68:438–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. van Hove A, Savoie PH, Maurin C, Brunelle S, Gravis G, Salem N, et al. Comparison of image-guided targeted biopsies versus systematic randomized biopsies in the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic literature review of well-designed studies. World J Urol. 2014;32:847–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Simmons LAM, Kanthabalan A, Arya M, Briggs T, Barratt D, Charman SC, et al. The PICTURE study: diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI in men requiring a repeat prostate biopsy. Br J Cancer. 2017;116:1159–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhang ZX, Yang J, Zhang CZ, Li KA, Quan QM, Wang XF, et al. The value of magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of prostate cancer in patients with previous negative biopsies and elevated prostate-specific antigen levels: a meta-analysis. Acad Radiol. 2014;21:578–89.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F, Bokhorst LP, Rannikko A, Klotz L, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2015;67:627–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Abdi H, Pourmalek F, Zargar H, Walshe T, Harris AC, Chang SD, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging enhances detection of significant tumor in patients on active surveillance for prostate cancer. Urology. 2015;85:423–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Siddiqui MM, Truong H, Rais-bahrami S, Stamatakis L, Logan J, Walton-diaz A, et al. Clinical implications of a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging based nomogram applied to prostate cancer active surveillance. J Urol. 2015;193:1943–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Futterer JJ, Briganti A, De Visschere P, Emberton M, Giannarini G, Kirkham A, et al. Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2015;68:1045–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hamoen EHJ, de Rooij M, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. 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. 2014;67:1112–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Washino S, Okochi T, Saito K, Konishi T, Hirai M, Kobayashi Y, et al. Combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density predicts biopsy outcome in prostate biopsy naive patients. BJU Int. 2017;119:225–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Alberts AR, Roobol MJ, Drost FJH, van Leenders GJ, Bokhorst LP, Bangma CH, et al. Risk-stratification based on magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen density may reduce unnecessary follow-up biopsy procedures in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2017;120:511–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. de Rooij M, Crienen S, Witjes JA, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM, Grutters JPC. Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR-guided targeted biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound–guided biopsy in diagnosing prostate cancer: a modelling study from a health care perspective. Eur Urol. 2014;66:430–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D, Froemming AT, Gupta RT, Turkbey B, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS Version 2 lexicon: a multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology. 2016;0:152542.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V, Eggener S, Emberton M, Futterer JJ, Gill IS, 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Moore CM, Giganti F, Albertsen P, Allen C, Bangma C, Briganti A, et al. Reporting magnetic resonance imaging in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer: the PRECISE recommendations–a report of a european school of oncology task force. Eur Urol. 2017;71:648–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Rivas JG, Giganti F, Álvarez-Maestro M, Freire MJ, Kasivisvanathan V, Martinez-Piñero L et al. Prostate indeterminate lesions on magnetic resonance imaging-biopsy versus surveillance: a literature review. Eur Urol Focus 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.02.012.

  33. van der Sar ECA, Kasivisvanathan V, Brizmohun M, Freeman A, Punwani S, Hamoudi R et al. Management of radiologically indeterminate magnetic resonance imaging signals in men at risk of prostate cancer. Eur Urol Focus. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.03.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Panebianco V, Barchetti G, Simone G, Monte M Del, Ciardi A, Grompone MD et al. Negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: what’s next? Eur Urol. 2018;74:48–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Jambor I, Kähkönen E, Taimen P, Merisaari H, Saunavaara J, Alanen K, et al. Prebiopsy multiparametric 3T prostate MRI in patients with elevated PSA, normal digital rectal examination, and no previous biopsy. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;41:1394–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Peltier A, Aoun F, Lemort M, Kwizera F, Paesmans M, VR Van. MRI-targeted biopsies versus systematic transrectal ultrasound guided biopsies for the diagnosis of localized prostate cancer in biopsy naive men. Biomed Res Int. 2015; 2015: 571708.

  37. Delongchamps NB, Portalez D, Bruguière E, Rouvière O, Malavaud B, Mozer P, et al. are magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound guided targeted biopsies noninferior to transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer? J Urol. 2016;196:1069–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. De Gorski A, Rouprêt M, Peyronnet B, Le Cossec C, Granger B, Comperat E, et al. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion targeted biopsies to diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer in enlarged compared to smaller prostates. J Urol. 2015;194:669–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Mendhiratta N, Rosenkrantz AB, Meng X, Wysock JS, Fenstermaker M, Huang R, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted prostate biopsy in a consecutive cohort of men with no previous biopsy: reduction of over detection through improved risk stratification. J Urol. 2015;194:1601–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Zhang Q, Wang W, Zhang B, Shi J, Fu Y, Li D, et al. Comparison of free-hand transperineal mpMRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy with transperineal 12-core systematic biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a single-center prospective study in China. Int Urol Nephrol. 2017;49:439–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Borkowetz A, Platzek I, Toma M, Renner T, Herout R, Baunacke M, et al. Evaluation of prostate imaging reporting and data system classification in the prediction of tumor aggressiveness in targeted magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy. Urol Int. 2017;99:177–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Mariotti GC, Costa DN, Pedrosa I, Falsarella PM, Martins T, Roehrborn CG, et al. Magnetic resonance/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy of the prostate compared to systematic 12-core biopsy for the diagnosis and characterization of prostate cancer: multi-institutional retrospective analysis of 389 patients. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig. 2016;34:416.e9–416.e14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Filson CP, Natarajan S, Margolis DJA, Huang J, Lieu P, Dorey FJ, et al. Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: the role of systematic and targeted biopsies. Cancer. 2016;122:884–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, Mendhiratta N, Fenstermaker M, Huang R, Wysock JS, et al. Relationship between prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), biopsy indication, and MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy outcomes. Eur Urol. 2015;69:512–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Hansen N, Barrett T, Kesch C, Pepdjonovic L, Bonekamp D, O’Sullivan R, et al. Multicentre evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging supported transperineal prostate biopsy in biopsy-naive men with suspicion of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2017;38:3218–21.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Borkowetz A, Hadaschik B, Platzek I, Toma M, Torsev G, Renner T, et al. Prospective comparison of transperineal MRI/ultrasound-fusion biopsy and transrectal systematic biopsy in biopsy-naive patients. BJU Int. 2017;12:3218–21.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Quentin M, Blondin D, Arsov C, Schimmöller L, Hiester A, Godehardt E, et al. Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging guided in-bore prostate biopsy versus systematic transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in biopsy naive men with elevated prostate specific antigen. J Urol. 2014;192:1374–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 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 

  49. Boesen L, Nørgaard N, Løgager V, Balslev I, Thomsen HS. A prospective comparison of selective multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging fusion-targeted and systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies for detecting prostate cancer in men undergoing repeated biopsies. Urol Int. 2017;99:384–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 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.

  51. Brock M, von Bodman C, Palisaar J, Becker W, Martin-Seidel P, Noldus J. A prospective comparison of systematic prostate biopsy with targeted biopsy guided by fused MRI and transrectal ultrasound. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015;112:605–11.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Mendhiratta N, Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, Wysock JS, Fenstermaker M, Huang R, et al. Prebiopsy MRI and MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy in men with previous negative biopsies: impact on repeat biopsy strategies. Urology. 2015;86:1192–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Lian H, Zhuang J, Wang W, Zhang B, Shi J, Li D, et al. Assessment of free-hand transperineal targeted prostate biopsy using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion in Chinese men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. BMC Urol. 2017;17:52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Borkowetz A, Platzek I, Toma M, Laniado M, Baretton G, Froehner M, et al. Comparison of systematic transrectal biopsy to transperineal magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2015;116:873–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Tran GN, Leapman MS, Nguyen HG, Cowan JE, Shinohara K, Westphalen AC, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging–ultrasound fusion biopsy during prostate cancer active surveillance. Eur Urol. 2017;72:275–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Ma TM, Tosoian JJ, Schaeffer EM, Landis P, Wolf S, Macura KJ, et al. The role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy in active surveillance. Eur Urol. 2017;71:174–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 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 

  58. Frye TP, George AK, Kilchevsky A, Maruf M, Siddiqui MM, Kongnyuy M et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound guided fusion biopsy to detect progression in patients with existing lesions on active surveillance for low and intermediate risk prostate cancer. J Urol. 2016;197:640–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Borkowetz A, Renner T, Platzek I, Toma M, Herout R, Baunacke M, et al. Evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy in patients with low-risk prostate cancer under active surveillance undergoing surveillance biopsy. Urol Int. 2018;100:155–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Okoro C, George AK, Siddiqui MM, Rais–Bahrami S, Walton–Diaz A, Shakir NA, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasonography fusion prostate biopsy significantly outperforms systematic 12–core biopsy for prediction of total magnetic resonance imaging tumor volume in active surveillance patients. J Endourol. 2015;29:1115–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Lai WS, Gordetsky JB, Thomas JV, Nix JW. Factors predicting prostate cancer upgrading on magnetic resonance imaging–targeted biopsy in an active surveillance population. Cancer. 2017;123:1941–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Pepe P, Cimino S, Garufi A, Priolo G, Russo GI, Giardina R, et al. Confirmatory biopsy of men under active surveillance: extended versus saturation versus multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy. Scand J Urol. 2017;51:260–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Study conception and design: AS, ME, CMM. Acquisition of data: AS, FG. Analysis and interpretation of data: AS, CMM. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: AS, FG, ME, CMM. Statistical analysis: AS, CMM. Supervision: AS, FG, ME, CMM.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Armando Stabile.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Mark Emberton is a UK National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator. In addition, he received research support from the UCLH/UCL NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. Francesco Giganti was funded by the UCL Graduate Scholarship. The remaining 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

Stabile, A., Giganti, F., Emberton, M. et al. MRI in prostate cancer diagnosis: do we need to add standard sampling? A review of the last 5 years. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 21, 473–487 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-018-0071-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-018-0071-8

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links