Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

MRI-Guided Prostate Biopsy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Percutaneous Image-Guided Biopsy

  • 1716 Accesses

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is rapidly being established as the modality of choice for evaluating the prostate and surrounding anatomy and for radiologically detecting prostate cancer. As is often the case for diagnostic MRI, this trend results from the integration of multiple soft-tissue contrast mechanisms, such as T2- and T1-weighted imaging and functional imaging techniques, such as diffusion, dynamic contrast enhancement, and spectroscopy. Similar to the evolution of biopsy in breast cancer, this appears to be leading to a workflow in which some patients may be better served by undergoing an MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate as opposed to a conventional multi-core, transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy. In response to this, integrated hardware and software solutions for performing MRI-guided biopsies in the prostate are being developed, validated, and commercialized. Although it is early in clinical adoption, this technology shows promise in increasing the sensitivity and positive predictive value of prostate biopsy in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Siegel R, Ward E, Brawley O, Jemal A, Cancer statistics. The impact of eliminating socioeconomic and racial disparities on premature cancer deaths. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61(4):212–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59(4):225–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tewari A, Divine G, Chang P, et al. Long-term survival in men with high grade prostate cancer: a comparison between conservative treatment, radiation therapy and radical prostatectomy–a propensity scoring approach. J Urol. 2007;177(3):911–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brawley OW, Ankerst DP, Thompson IM. Screening for prostate cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59(4):264–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Boyle P, Brawley OW. Prostate cancer: current evidence weighs against population screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59(4):220–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Brawley OW. Cancer screening in the United States, 2009: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59(1):27–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb 3rd RL, et al. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1310–19.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1320–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Watanabe H. History and applications of transrectal sonography of the prostate. Urol Clin North Am. 1989;16(4):617–22.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Sadeghi-Nejad H, Simmons M, Dakwar G, Dogra V. Controversies in transrectal ultrasonography and prostate biopsy. Ultrasound Q. 2006;22(3):169–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Eskicorapci SY, Baydar DE, Akbal C, et al. An extended 10-core transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsy protocol improves the detection of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2004;45(4):444–8; discussion 448–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Karam JA, Shulman MJ, Benaim EA. Impact of training level of urology residents on the detection of prostate cancer on TRUS biopsy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2004;7(1):38–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Djavan B, Ravery V, Zlotta A, et al. Prospective evaluation of prostate cancer detected on biopsies 1, 2, 3 and 4: when should we stop? J Urol. 2001;166(5):1679–83.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Gleason DF. Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol. 1992;23(3):273–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Iczkowski KA, Lucia MS. Current perspectives on Gleason grading of prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep. 2011;12(3):216–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Noguchi M, Stamey TA, McNeal JE, Yemoto CM. Relationship between systematic biopsies and histological features of 222 radical prostatectomy specimens: lack of prediction of tumor significance for men with nonpalpable prostate cancer. J Urol. 2001;166(1):104–9; discussion 109–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol. 1989;142(1):71–4; discussion 74–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Onur R, Littrup PJ, Pontes JE, Bianco Jr FJ. Contemporary impact of transrectal ultrasound lesions for prostate cancer detection. J Urol. 2004;172(2):512–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Heijmink SW, van Moerkerk H, Kiemeney LA, Witjes JA, Frauscher F, Barentsz JO. A comparison of the diagnostic performance of systematic versus ultrasound-guided biopsies of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(4):927–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Atalar E, Menard C. MR-guided interventions for prostate cancer. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2005;13(3):491–504.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tempany C, Straus S, Hata N, Haker S. MR-guided prostate interventions. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;27(2):356–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hoeks CM, Barentsz JO, Hambrock T, et al. Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. Radiology. 2011;261(1):46–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kundra V, Silverman PM, Matin SF, Choi H. Imaging in oncology from the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center: diagnosis, staging, and surveillance of prostate cancer. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(4):830–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Weinreb JC, Blume JD, Coakley FV, et al. Prostate cancer: sextant localization at MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging before prostatectomy–results of ACRIN prospective multi-institutional clinicopathologic study. Radiology. 2009;251(1):122–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ahmed HU, Kirkham A, Arya M, et al. Is it time to consider a role for MRI before prostate biopsy? Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2009;6(4):197–206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Qayyum A, Coakley FV, Lu Y, et al. Organ-confined prostate cancer: effect of prior transrectal biopsy on endorectal MRI and MR spectroscopic imaging. Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183(4):1079–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Huisman HJ, Engelbrecht MR, Barentsz JO. Accurate estimation of pharmacokinetic contrast-enhanced dynamic MRI parameters of the prostate. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;13(4):607–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Alonzi R, Padhani AR, Allen C. Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2007;63(3):335–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bonekamp D, Macura KJ. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of the prostate. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;19(6):273–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Franiel T, Ludemann L, Rudolph B, et al. Evaluation of normal prostate tissue, chronic prostatitis, and prostate cancer by quantitative perfusion analysis using a dynamic contrast-enhanced inversion-prepared dual-contrast gradient echo sequence. Invest Radiol. 2008;43(7):481–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ito H, Kamoi K, Yokoyama K, Yamada K, Nishimura T. Visualization of prostate cancer using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: comparison with transrectal power Doppler ultrasound. Br J Radiol. 2003;76(909):617–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Kaji Y, Kurhanewicz J, Hricak H, et al. Localizing prostate cancer in the presence of postbiopsy changes on MR images: role of proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology. 1998;206(3):785–90.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Pondman KM, Futterer JJ, ten Haken B, et al. MR-guided biopsy of the prostate: an overview of techniques and a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2008;54(3):517–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Hoeks C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. J Urol. 2010;183(2):520–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Beyersdorff D, Winkel A, Hamm B, Lenk S, Loening SA, Taupitz M. MR imaging-guided prostate biopsy with a closed MR unit at 1.5 T: initial results. Radiology. 2005;234(2):576–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Roethke M, Anastasiadis AG, 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. 2011;30(2):213–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Heijmink SW, Futterer JJ, Strum SS, et al. State-of-the-art uroradiologic imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Acta Oncol. 2011;50 Suppl 1:25–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Tanimoto A, Nakashima J, Kohno H, Shinmoto H, Kuribayashi S. Prostate cancer screening: the clinical value of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic MR imaging in combination with T2-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;25(1):146–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Schoenfield L, Jones JS, Zippe CD, et al. The incidence of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and atypical glands suspicious for carcinoma on first-time saturation needle biopsy, and the subsequent risk of cancer. BJU Int. 2007;99(4):770–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Wills ML, Hamper UM, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Incidence of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in sextant needle biopsy specimens. Urology. 1997;49(3):367–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Djavan B, Milani S, Remzi M. Prostate biopsy: who, how and when. An update. Can J Urol. 2005;12:44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Lujan M, Paez A, Santonja C, Pascual T, Fernandez I, Berenguer A. Prostate cancer detection and tumor characteristics in men with multiple biopsy sessions. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2004;7(3):238–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. 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(5):1605–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Jones JS. Saturation biopsy for detecting and characterizing prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2007;99(6):1340–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Djavan B, Fong YK, Ravery V, et al. Are repeat biopsies required in men with PSA levels < or =4 ng/ml? A Multiinstitutional Prospective European Study. Eur Urol. 2005;47(1):38–44; discussion 44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Mian BM, Lehr DJ, Moore CK, et al. Role of prostate biopsy schemes in accurate prediction of Gleason scores. Urology. 2006;67(2):379–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Jones JS, Patel A, Schoenfield L, Rabets JC, Zippe CD, Magi-Galluzzi C. Saturation technique does not improve cancer detection as an initial prostate biopsy strategy. J Urol. 2006;175(2):485–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Pepe P, Aragona F. Saturation prostate needle biopsy and prostate cancer detection at initial and repeat evaluation. Urology. 2007;70(6):1131–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Galfano A, Novara G, Iafrate M, et al. Prostate biopsy: the transperineal approach. EAU-EBU Update Series. 2007;5(6):241–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Berger AP, Gozzi C, Steiner H, et al. Complication rate of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: a comparison among 3 protocols with 6, 10 and 15 cores. J Urol. 2004;171(4):1478–80; discussion 1480–1471.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Naughton CK, Miller DC, Yan Y. Impact of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy on quality of life: a prospective randomized trial comparing 6 versus 12 cores. J Urol. 2001;165(1):100–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Naughton CK, Ornstein DK, Smith DS, Catalona WJ. Pain and morbidity of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: a prospective randomized trial of 6 versus 12 cores. J Urol. 2000;163(1):168–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. D'Amico AV, Tempany CM, Cormack R, et al. Transperineal magnetic resonance image guided prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2000;164(2):385–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Hata N, Jinzaki M, Kacher D, et al. MR imaging-guided prostate biopsy with surgical navigation software: device validation and feasibility. Radiology. 2001;220(1):263–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Susil RC, Menard C, Krieger A, et al. Transrectal prostate biopsy and fiducial marker placement in a standard 1.5T magnetic resonance imaging scanner. J Urol. 2006;175(1):113–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Djavan B, Margreiter M. Biopsy standards for detection of prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2007;25(1):11–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Maan Z, Cutting CW, Patel U, et al. Morbidity of transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsies in patients after the continued use of low-dose aspirin. BJU Int. 2003;91(9):798–800.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Giannarini G, Mogorovich A, Valent F, et al. Continuing or discontinuing low-dose aspirin before transrectal prostate biopsy: results of a prospective randomized trial. Urology. 2007;70(3):501–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Halliwell OT, Yadegafar G, Lane C, Dewbury KC. Transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate: aspirin increases the incidence of minor bleeding complications. Clin Radiol. 2008;63(5):557–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Yakar D, Hambrock T, Hoeks C, Barentsz JO, Futterer JJ. Magnetic resonance-guided biopsy of the prostate: feasibility, technique, and clinical applications. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;19(6):291–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Engelhard K, Hollenbach HP, Kiefer B, Winkel A, Goeb K, Engehausen D. 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. 2006;16(6):1237–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Anastasiadis AG, Lichy MP, Nagele U, et al. MRI-guided biopsy of the prostate increases diagnostic performance in men with elevated or increasing PSA levels after previous negative TRUS biopsies. Eur Urol. 2006;50(4):738–48; discussion 748–39.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Hambrock T, Hoeks C, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, et al. Prospective assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using 3-T diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies versus a systematic 10-core transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy cohort. Eur Urol. 2012;61(1):177–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Zangos S, Eichler K, Engelmann K, et al. MR-guided transgluteal biopsies with an open low-field system in patients with clinically suspected prostate cancer: technique and preliminary results. Eur Radiol. 2005;15(1):174–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Emiliozzi P, Longhi S, Scarpone P, Pansadoro A, DePaula F, Pansadoro V. The value of a single biopsy with 12 transperineal cores for detecting prostate cancer in patients with elevated prostate specific antigen. J Urol. 2001;166(3):845–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Kawakami S, Kihara K, Fujii Y, Masuda H, Kobayashi T, Kageyama Y. Transrectal ultrasound-guided transperineal 14-core systematic biopsy detects apico-anterior cancer foci of T1c prostate cancer. Int J Urol. 2004;11(8):613–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Furuno T, Demura T, Kaneta T, et al. Difference of cancer core distribution between first and repeat biopsy: In patients diagnosed by extensive transperineal ultrasound guided template prostate biopsy. Prostate. 2004;58(1):76–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Igel TC, Knight MK, Young PR, et al. Systematic transperineal ultrasound guided template biopsy of the prostate in patients at high risk. J Urol. 2001;165(5):1575–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Merrick GS, Gutman S, Andreini H, et al. Prostate cancer distribution in patients diagnosed by transperineal template-guided saturation biopsy. Eur Urol. 2007;52(3):715–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Taira AV, Merrick GS, Galbreath RW, et al. Performance of transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy in detecting prostate cancer in the initial and repeat biopsy setting. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2009;13(1):71–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Lagerburg V, Moerland MA, Lagendijk JJ, Battermann JJ. Measurement of prostate rotation during insertion of needles for brachytherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2005;77(3):318–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Cormack RA, D'Amico AV, Hata N, Silverman S, Weinstein M, Tempany CM. Feasibility of transperineal prostate biopsy under interventional magnetic resonance guidance. Urology. 2000;56(4):663–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Susil RC, Camphausen K, Choyke P, et al. System for prostate brachytherapy and biopsy in a standard 1.5 T MRI scanner. Magn Reson Med. 2004;52(3):683–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Cantwell CP, Hahn PF, Gervais DA, Mueller PR. Prostate biopsy after ano-rectal resection: value of CT-guided trans-gluteal biopsy. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(4):738–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Zangos S, Melzer A, Eichler K, et al. MR-compatible Assistance System for Biopsy in a High-Field-Strength System: Initial Results in Patients with Suspicious Prostate Lesions. Radiology. 2011;1:2011.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Zangos S, Herzog C, Eichler K, et al. MR-compatible assistance system for punction in a high-field system: device and feasibility of transgluteal biopsies of the prostate gland. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(4):1118–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Macura KJ, Stoianovici D. Advancements in magnetic resonance-guided robotic interventions in the prostate. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;19(6):297–304.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Mozer PC, Partin AW, Stoianovici D. Robotic image-guided needle interventions of the prostate. Rev Urol. 2009;11(1):7–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Franiel T, Stephan C, Erbersdobler A, et al. Areas suspicious for prostate cancer: MR-guided biopsy in patients with at least one transrectal US-guided biopsy with a negative finding—multiparametric MR imaging for detection and biopsy planning. Radiology. 2011;259(1):162–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

    R. Jason Stafford PhD

  2. Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

    Stephen E. McRae MD

  3. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Division of Diagnostic Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

    Stephen E. McRae MD

  4. Department of Interventional Radiology, Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1471, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Kamran Ahrar MD, FSIR

Authors
  1. R. Jason Stafford PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen E. McRae MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kamran Ahrar MD, FSIR
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Jason Stafford PhD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. Vascular & Interventional Radiol., University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA

    Kamran Ahrar

  2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology Section of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA

    Sanjay Gupta

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Stafford, R.J., McRae, S.E., Ahrar, K. (2014). MRI-Guided Prostate Biopsy. In: Ahrar, K., Gupta, S. (eds) Percutaneous Image-Guided Biopsy. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8217-8_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8217-8_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-8216-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-8217-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation