Cognitive mpMRI/TRUS biopsy of the prostate with using strain elastography

Purpose. To evaluate the effectiveness of prostate cancer detection with method of cognitive mpMRI/TRUS fusion biopsy using strain sonoelastography.

Materials and methods. Cognitive transrectal fusion biopsy of prostate was performed in 32 patients. According to the data of a preliminary conducted mpMRI, 33 foci suspicious of prostate cancer were included (PIRADSv2 = 3–5). Before the biopsy, all patients underwent ultrasound planning using compression sonoelastography.

Results. The overall sensitivity was 76% for the targeted biopsy, and 49% for systematic biopsy. The number of biopsy specimens with a clinically significant Gleason grade in the targeted biopsy group was 85% of all columns with cancer specimens, in the systematic biopsy group this number was 68%. On average, the Gleason grade after targeted biopsy was 7.5 ± 0.9, and it was 7.2 ± 0.9 in the columns after systematic biopsy. On average, the percentage of tumor in the columns after targeted biopsy was 72% ± 29% and it was 55% ± 35% in the columns after systematic biopsy. The false positive for mpMRI was 15%. The overall sensitivity for the strain sonoelastography was 69% in this study, clinically significant cancer was detected in 71% of all columns with cancer specimens. False positive for elastography was observed in 18% of cases.

Conclusion. Comparing with systematic biopsy, cognitive mpMRI / TRUS fusion biopsy can improve the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer and reduce the number of detected cases of clinically insignificant cancer. In cases of a total or subtotal tumor lesion in the peripheral zone detected on mpMRI, it is possible to take fewer columns for morphological verification of the tumor. The use of compression sonoelastography as an additional parameter of navigation in cognitive mpMRI/TRUS fusion biopsy can be considered as a promising way to increase the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer.

1. Le J.D., Huang J., Marks L.S. Targeted prostate biopsy: value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in detection of localized cancer. Asian J. Andrology. 2014; 16: 522–529. http://doi.org/ 10.4103/1008-682X.122864.

2. Puech P., Rouvière O., Renard-Penna R., Villers A., Devos P., Colombel M., Bitker M.-O., Leroy X., MègeLechevallier F., Comperat E., Ouzzane A., Lemaitre L. Prostate cancer diagnosis: Multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy – prospective multicenter study. Radiology. 2013; 268 (2): 461–469. http://doi.org/ 10.1148/radiol.13121501.

3. Kaufmann S., Russo G.I., Bamberg F., Löwe L., Morgia G., Nikolaou K., Stenzl A., Kruck S., Bedke J. Prostate cancer detection in patients with prior negative biopsy undergoing cognitive , robotic or in bore MRI target biopsy. Wld J. Urol. 2018; 36: 761–768. http://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00345-018-2189-7.

4. Oderda M., Faletti R., Battisti G., Dalmasso E., Falcone M., Marra G., Palazzetti A., Zitella A., Bergamasco L., Gandini G., Gontero P. Prostate cancer detection rate with Koelis fusion biopsies versus cognitive biopsies: a comparative study. Urologia Internationalis. 2016; 97: 230–237. http://doi.org/ 10.1159/000445524.

5. Marks L., Young Sh., Natarajan Sh. MRI-ultrasound fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsy. Curr. Opin. Urol. 2013; 23(1): 43–50. http://doi.org/ 10.1097/MOU.0b013e32835ad3ee.

6. Cool D.W., Zhang X., Romagnoli C., Izawa J.I., Romano W.M., Fenster A. Evaluation of MRI-TRUS fusion versus cognitive registration accuracy for MRI-Targeted, TRUSguided prostate biopsy. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2015; 204: 83–91. http://doi.org/ 10.2214/AJR.14.12681.

7. Kam J., Yuminaga Y., Kim R., Aluwihare K., Macneil F., Ouyang R., Ruthven S., Louie-Johnsun M. Does magnetic resonance imagingeguided biopsy improve prostate cancer detection? A comparison of systematic, cognitive fusion and ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy. Prostate Int. 2018; 6: 88–93. http://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.prnil.2017.10.003.

8. Marra G., Ploussard G., Futterer J., Valerio M. Controversies in MR targeted biopsy: alone or combined, cognitive versus software-based fusion, transrectal versus transperineal approach? Wld J. Urol. 2019; 37: 277–287. http://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00345-018-02622-5.

9. Murphy I.G., NiMhurchu E., Gibney R.G., McMahon C.J. MRI-directed cognitive fusion-guided biopsy of the anterior prostate tumors. Diagn. Intervent. Radiol. 2017; 23: 87–93. http://doi.org/ 10.5152/dir.2016.15445.

10. Galosi A.B., Maselli G., Sbrollini G. Cognitive zonal fusion biopsy of the prostate: Original technique between target and saturation. Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia. 2016; 88 (4): 292–295. http://doi.org/ 10.4081/aiua.2016.4.292.

11. Barr R.G., Cosgrove D., Brock M., Cantisani V., Correas J.M., Postema A. W., Salomon G., Tsutsumi M., Xu H.-X., Dietrich C.F. WFUMB Guidelines and Recommendations on the Clinical Use of Ultrasound Elastography: Part 5. Prostate. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2017; 43 (1): 27–48. http://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2016.06.020.

12. Junker D., Schäfer G., Kobel C., Kremser C., Bektic J., Jaschke W., Aigner F. Comparison of real-time elastography and multiparametric MRI for postate cancer detection: a whole-mount step-section analysis. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2014; 202 (3): 263–269. http://doi.org/ 10.2214/AJR.13.11061.

13. Fenton J.J., Weyrich M.S., Durbin S., Liu Y, Bang H, Melnikow J. Prostate-specific antigen-based screening for prostate cancer evidence report and systematic review for the US preventive services task force. JAMA. 2018; 319 (18): 1914–1931. http://doi.org/ 10.1001/jama.2018.3712.