Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Paradigm Shift in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Pre-Biopsy Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Targeted Biopsy

  • Jung Jae Park (Department of Radiology, Chungnam National University Hospital) ;
  • Chan Kyo Kim (Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
  • Received : 2022.01.26
  • Accepted : 2022.03.06
  • Published : 2022.06.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

With regard to the indolent clinical characteristics of prostate cancer (PCa), the more selective detection of clinically significant PCa (CSC) has been emphasized in its diagnosis and management. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has advanced technically, and recent international cooperation has provided a standardized imaging and reporting system for prostate MRI. Accordingly, prostate MRI has recently been investigated and utilized as a triage tool before biopsy to guide tissue sampling to increase the detection rate of CSC beyond the staging tool for patients in whom PCa was already confirmed on conventional systematic biopsy. Radiologists must understand the current paradigm shift for better PCa diagnosis and management. This article reviewed the recent literature, demonstrating the diagnostic value of pre-biopsy prostate MRI with targeted biopsy and discussed unsolved issues regarding the paradigm shift in the diagnosis of PCa.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

We thank the Editage (www.editage.co.kr) for English language editing.

References

  1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:394-424  https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492
  2. Hong S, Won YJ, Park YR, Jung KW, Kong HJ, Lee ES; Community of Population-Based Regional Cancer Registries. Cancer statistics in Korea: incidence, mortality, survival, and prevalence in 2017. Cancer Res Treat 2020;52:335-350  https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2020.206
  3. Etzioni R, Penson DF, Legler JM, di Tommaso D, Boer R, Gann PH, et al. Overdiagnosis due to prostate-specific antigen screening: lessons from U.S. prostate cancer incidence trends. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:981-990  https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/94.13.981
  4. Catalona WJ, Richie JP, Ahmann FR, Hudson MA, Scardino PT, Flanigan RC, et al. Comparison of digital rectal examination and serum prostate specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer: results of a multicenter clinical trial of 6,630 men. J Urol 1994;151:1283-1290  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)35233-3
  5. Dahnert WF, Hamper UM, Eggleston JC, Walsh PC, Sanders RC. Prostatic evaluation by transrectal sonography with histopathologic correlation: the echopenic appearance of early carcinoma. Radiology 1986;158:97-102  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.158.1.3510032
  6. Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Stapleton AM, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:766-771  https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/90.10.766
  7. Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P, et al. 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1415-1424  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1606220
  8. Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, Cestari A, Galfano A, Graefen M, et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 2009;55:1037-1063  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2009.01.036
  9. Matoso A, Epstein JI. Defining clinically significant prostate cancer on the basis of pathological findings. Histopathology 2019;74:135-145  https://doi.org/10.1111/his.13712
  10. Epstein JI, Walsh PC, Carmichael M, Brendler CB. Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 1994;271:368-374  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1994.03510290050036
  11. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA; Grading Committee. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 2016;40:244-252  https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530
  12. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol 2012;22:746-757  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2377-y
  13. Roehl KA, Antenor JA, Catalona WJ. Serial biopsy results in prostate cancer screening study. J Urol 2002;167:2435-2439  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64999-3
  14. Djavan B, Ravery V, Zlotta A, Dobronski P, Dobrovits M, Fakhari M, et al. Prospective evaluation of prostate cancer detected on biopsies 1, 2, 3 and 4: when should we stop? J Urol 2001;166:1679-1683  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65652-2
  15. Stewart CS, Leibovich BC, Weaver AL, Lieber MM. Prostate cancer diagnosis using a saturation needle biopsy technique after previous negative sextant biopsies. J Urol 2001;166:86-91; discussion 91-92  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)66083-1
  16. Hambrock T, Somford DM, Hoeks C, Bouwense SA, Huisman H, Yakar D, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. J Urol 2010;183:520-527  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.10.022
  17. Portalez D, Mozer P, Cornud F, Renard-Penna R, Misrai V, Thoulouzan M, et al. Validation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in a cohort of repeat biopsy patients. Eur Urol 2012;62:986-996  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.06.044
  18. Costa DN, Bloch BN, Yao DF, Sanda MG, Ngo L, Genega EM, et al. Diagnosis of relevant prostate cancer using supplementary cores from magnetic resonance imaging-prompted areas following multiple failed biopsies. Magn Reson Imaging 2013;31:947-952  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2013.02.007
  19. Sonn GA, Chang E, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, Macairan M, Lieu P, et al. Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. Eur Urol 2014;65:809-815  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.03.025
  20. Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MG. 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;68:438-450  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.037
  21. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management. nice.org.uk Web site. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng131. Published 2019. Accessed November 23, 2021 
  22. Parker C, Castro E, Fizazi K, Heidenreich A, Ost P, Procopio G, et al. Prostate cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2020;31:1119-1134  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2020.06.011
  23. Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer-2020 update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2021;79:243-262  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042
  24. Coakley FV, Oto A, Alexander LF, Allen BC, Davis BJ, Froemming AT, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® prostate cancer-pretreatment detection, surveillance, and staging. J Am Coll Radiol 2017;14(5S):S245-S257  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.02.026
  25. Panebianco V, Barchetti F, Sciarra A, Ciardi A, Indino EL, Papalia R, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging vs. standard care in men being evaluated for prostate cancer: a randomized study. Urol Oncol 2015;33:17.e1-17.e7  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.09.013
  26. Tonttila PP, Lantto J, Paakko E, Piippo U, Kauppila S, Lammentausta E, et al. Prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer diagnosis in biopsy-naive men with suspected prostate cancer based on elevated prostate-specific antigen values: results from a randomized prospective blinded controlled trial. Eur Urol 2016;69:419-425  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.05.024
  27. Baco E, Rud E, Eri LM, Moen G, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A, et al. A randomized controlled trial to assess and compare the outcomes of two-core prostate biopsy guided by fused magnetic resonance and transrectal ultrasound images and traditional 12-core systematic biopsy. Eur Urol 2016;69:149-156  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.03.041
  28. Porpiglia F, Manfredi M, Mele F, Cossu M, Bollito E, Veltri A, et al. Diagnostic pathway with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging versus standard pathway: results from a randomized prospective study in biopsy-naive patients with suspected prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2017;72:282-288  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.041
  29. van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israel B, Hendriks R, Padhani AR, Hoogenboom M, et al. Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naive men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol 2019;75:570-578  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023
  30. 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;389:815-822  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
  31. 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;378:1767-1777  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
  32. Rouviere O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, Claudon M, Roy C, Mege-Lechevallier F, et al. Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 2019;20:100-109  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2
  33. 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  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052
  34. Rosenkrantz AB, Babb JS, Taneja SS, Ream JM. Proposed adjustments to PI-RADS version 2 decision rules: impact on prostate cancer detection. Radiology 2017;283:119-129  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016161124
  35. Westphalen AC, McCulloch CE, Anaokar JM, Arora S, Barashi NS, Barentsz JO, et al. Variability of the positive predictive value of PI-RADS for prostate MRI across 26 centers: experience of the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel. Radiology 2020;296:76-84  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020190646
  36. Tan N, Lin WC, Khoshnoodi P, Asvadi NH, Yoshida J, Margolis DJ, et al. In-bore 3-T MR-guided transrectal targeted prostate biopsy: prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2-based diagnostic performance for detection of prostate cancer. Radiology 2017;283:130-139  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016152827
  37. Sheridan AD, Nath SK, Syed JS, Aneja S, Sprenkle PC, Weinreb JC, et al. Risk of clinically significant prostate cancer associated with prostate imaging reporting and data system category 3 (equivocal) lesions identified on multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2018;210:347-357  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18516
  38. Venderink W, van Luijtelaar A, Bomers JGR, 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 2018;73:353-360  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.02.021
  39. Wegelin O, Exterkate L, van der Leest M, Kummer JA, Vreuls W, de Bruin PC, et al. The FUTURE trial: a multicenter randomised controlled trial on target biopsy techniques based on magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol 2019;75:582-590  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.040
  40. Elkhoury FF, Felker ER, Kwan L, Sisk AE, Delfin M, Natarajan S, et al. Comparison of targeted vs systematic prostate biopsy in men who are biopsy naive: the prospective assessment of image registration in the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PAIREDCAP) study. JAMA Surg 2019;154:811-818  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2019.1734
  41. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, et al. Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol 2019;76:340-351  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
  42. Tamada T, Kido A, Takeuchi M, Yamamoto A, Miyaji Y, Kanomata N, et al. Comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and PI-RADS version 2.1 for the detection of transition zone prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol 2019;121:108704 
  43. Byun J, Park KJ, Kim MH, Kim JK. Direct comparison of PI-RADS version 2 and 2.1 in transition zone lesions for detection of prostate cancer: preliminary experience. J Magn Reson Imaging 2020;52:577-586  https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.27080
  44. Kim HS, Kwon GY, Kim MJ, Park SY. Prostate imaging-reporting and data system: comparison of the diagnostic performance between version 2.0 and 2.1 for prostatic peripheral zone. Korean J Radiol 2021;22:1100-1109  https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2020.0837
  45. Das CJ, Netaji A, Razik A, Verma S. MRI-targeted prostate biopsy: what radiologists should know. Korean J Radiol 2020;21:1087-1094  https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2019.0817
  46. Hoeks CM, Schouten MG, Bomers JG, Hoogendoorn SP, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Hambrock T, et al. Three-tesla magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy in men with increased prostate-specific antigen and repeated, negative, random, systematic, transrectal ultrasound biopsies: detection of clinically significant prostate cancers. Eur Urol 2012;62:902-909  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.047
  47. Franiel T, Stephan C, Erbersdobler A, Dietz E, Maxeiner A, Hell N, 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;259:162-172  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10101251
  48. Zangos S, Eichler K, Engelmann K, Ahmed M, Dettmer S, Herzog C, 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;15:174-182  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-004-2458-2
  49. 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;16:1237-1243  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-0100-6
  50. Hambrock T, Futterer JJ, Huisman HJ, Hulsbergen-vandeKaa C, van Basten JP, van Oort I, et al. 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 2008;43:686-694  https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0b013e31817d0506
  51. Zangos S, Melzer A, Eichler K, Sadighi C, Thalhammer A, Bodelle B, et al. MR-compatible assistance system for biopsy in a high-field-strength system: initial results in patients with suspicious prostate lesions. Radiology 2011;259:903-910  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11101559
  52. Roethke M, Anastasiadis AG, Lichy M, Werner M, Wagner P, Kruck S, 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 2012;30:213-218  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0675-2
  53. Engehausen DG, Engelhard K, Schwab SA, Uder M, Wach S, Wullich B, et al. Magnetic resonance image-guided biopsies with a high detection rate of prostate cancer. ScientificWorldJournal 2012;2012:975971 
  54. Lichy MP, Anastasiadis AG, Aschoff P, Sotlar K, Eschmann SM, Pfannenberg C, et al. Morphologic, functional, and metabolic magnetic resonance imaging-guided prostate biopsy in a patient with prior negative transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies and persistently elevated prostate-specific antigen levels. Urology 2007;69:1208.E5-1208.E8  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2007.03.009
  55. Lattouf JB, Grubb RL 3rd, Lee SJ, Bjurlin MA, Albert P, Singh AK, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-directed transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsies in patients at risk of prostate cancer. BJU Int 2007;99:1041-1046  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06690.x
  56. Park BK, Lee HM, Kim CK, Choi HY, Park JW. 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 2008;43:789-793  https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0b013e318183725e
  57. Labanaris AP, Engelhard K, Zugor V, Nutzel R, Kuhn R. Prostate cancer detection using an extended prostate biopsy schema in combination with additional targeted cores from suspicious images in conventional and functional endorectal magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2010;13:65-70  https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2009.41
  58. Haffner J, Lemaitre L, Puech P, Haber GP, Leroy X, Jones JS, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. BJU Int 2011;108(8 Pt 2):E171-E178  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10112.x
  59. Pinto PA, Chung PH, Rastinehad AR, Baccala AA Jr, Kruecker J, Benjamin CJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 2011;186:1281-1285  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.05.078
  60. Choi MS, Choi YS, Yoon BI, Kim SJ, Cho HJ, Hong SH, et al. The clinical value of performing an MRI before prostate biopsy. Korean J Urol 2011;52:572-577  https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2011.52.8.572
  61. Watanabe Y, Terai A, Araki T, Nagayama M, Okumura A, Amoh Y, et al. Detection and localization of prostate cancer with the targeted biopsy strategy based on ADC map: a prospective large-scale cohort study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012;35:1414-1421  https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.23587
  62. Shigemura K, Motoyama S, Yamashita M. Do additional cores from MRI cancer-suspicious lesions to systematic 12-core transrectal prostate biopsy give better cancer detection? Urol Int 2012;88:145-149  https://doi.org/10.1159/000334375
  63. Kwak JT, Hong CW, Pinto PA, Williams M, Xu S, Kruecker J, et al. Is visual registration equivalent to semiautomated registration in prostate biopsy? Biomed Res Int 2015;2015:394742 
  64. Puech P, Rouviere O, Renard-Penna R, Villers A, Devos P, Colombel M, et al. Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy--prospective multicenter study. Radiology 2013;268:461-469  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13121501
  65. Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, Stifelman MD, Lepor H, Deng FM, et al. A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial. Eur Urol 2014;66:343-351  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.10.048
  66. Lee DJ, Recabal P, Sjoberg DD, Thong A, Lee JK, Eastham JA, et al. Comparative effectiveness of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging ultrasound fusion software and visual targeting: a prospective study. J Urol 2016;196:697-702  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.03.149
  67. Arsov C, Rabenalt R, Blondin D, Quentin M, Hiester A, Godehardt E, et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided in-bore biopsy to MRI-ultrasound fusion and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsies. Eur Urol 2015;68:713-720  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.008
  68. Yaxley AJ, Yaxley JW, Thangasamy IA, Ballard E, Pokorny MR. Comparison between target magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in-gantry and cognitively directed transperineal or transrectal-guided prostate biopsies for prostate imaging-reporting and data system (PI-RADS) 3-5 MRI lesions. BJU Int 2017;120 Suppl 3:43-50  https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13971
  69. Hamid S, Donaldson IA, Hu Y, Rodell R, Villarini B, Bonmati E, et al. The SmartTarget biopsy trial: a prospective, within-person randomised, blinded trial comparing the accuracy of visual-registration and magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound image-fusion targeted biopsies for prostate cancer risk stratification. Eur Urol 2019;75:733-740  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.08.007
  70. Kaufmann S, Russo GI, Bamberg F, Lowe L, Morgia G, Nikolaou K, et al. Prostate cancer detection in patients with prior negative biopsy undergoing cognitive-, robotic- or in-bore MRI target biopsy. World J Urol 2018;36:761-768  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2189-7
  71. Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, Hooft L, Bosch JLHR, 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;71:517-531  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.07.041
  72. Zhang M, Milot L, Khalvati F, Sugar L, Downes M, Baig SM, et al. Value of increasing biopsy cores per target with cognitive MRI-targeted transrectal US prostate biopsy. Radiology 2019;291:83-89  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019180712
  73. Gleason DF. Classification of prostatic carcinomas. Cancer Chemother Rep 1966;50:125-128 
  74. Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC Jr, Amin MB, Egevad LL; ISUP Grading Committee. The 2005 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29:1228-1242  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pas.0000173646.99337.b1
  75. Corcoran NM, Hovens CM, Hong MK, Pedersen J, Casey RG, Connolly S, et al. Underestimation of Gleason score at prostate biopsy reflects sampling error in lower volume tumours. BJU Int 2012;109:660-664  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10543.x
  76. 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;54:371-381  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.03.049
  77. Sved PD, Gomez P, Manoharan M, Kim SS, Soloway MS. Limitations of biopsy Gleason grade: implications for counseling patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 prostate cancer. J Urol 2004;172:98-102  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000132135.18093.d6
  78. Corcoran NM, Hong MK, Casey RG, Hurtado-Coll A, Peters J, Harewood L, et al. Upgrade in Gleason score between prostate biopsies and pathology following radical prostatectomy significantly impacts upon the risk of biochemical recurrence. BJU Int 2011;108(8 Pt 2):E202-E210  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10119.x
  79. Briganti A, Fossati N, Catto JWF, Cornford P, Montorsi F, Mottet N, et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: the European Association of Urology position in 2018. Eur Urol 2018;74:357-368  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.06.008
  80. 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;67:627-636  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.050
  81. 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;196:1613-1618  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.06.079
  82. Kim CH, Kim CK, Park JJ, Park SY, Yoon YC. Yield of concurrent systemic biopsy during MRI-targeted biopsy according to prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 in patients with suspected prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 2021;31:1667-1675  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07167-z
  83. Drost FH, Osses DF, Nieboer D, Steyerberg EW, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ, et al. Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019;4:CD012663 
  84. Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, Catto J, Emberton M, Nam R, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 2013;64:876-892  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.049
  85. Moldovan PC, Van den Broeck T, Sylvester R, Marconi L, Bellmunt J, van den Bergh RCN, et al. What is the negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in excluding prostate cancer at biopsy? A systematic review and meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol 2017;72:250-266  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.02.026
  86. Kim JG, Kim CK, Kim JH. Prebiopsy multiparametric MRI with cancer-negative findings in men with suspected prostate cancer: evaluation using prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2018;211:121-126  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18926
  87. Vargas HA, Akin O, Shukla-Dave A, Zhang J, Zakian KL, Zheng J, et al. Performance characteristics of MR imaging in the evaluation of clinically low-risk prostate cancer: a prospective study. Radiology 2012;265:478-487  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12120041
  88. Le JD, Tan N, Shkolyar E, Lu DY, Kwan L, Marks LS, et al. Multifocality and prostate cancer detection by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with whole-mount histopathology. Eur Urol 2015;67:569-576  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.08.079
  89. Vargas HA, Hotker AM, Goldman DA, Moskowitz CS, Gondo T, Matsumoto K, et al. Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference. Eur Radiol 2016;26:1606-1612  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4015-6
  90. Faria R, Soares MO, Spackman E, Ahmed HU, Brown LC, Kaplan R, et al. Optimising the diagnosis of prostate cancer in the era of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: a cost-effectiveness analysis based on the prostate MR imaging study (PROMIS). Eur Urol 2018;73:23-30  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.08.018
  91. Muthigi A, George AK, Sidana A, Kongnyuy M, Simon R, Moreno V, et al. Missing the mark: prostate cancer upgrading by systematic biopsy over magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. J Urol 2017;197:327-334  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.08.097
  92. Panebianco V, Barchetti G, Simone G, Del Monte M, Ciardi A, Grompone MD, et al. Negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: what's next? Eur Urol 2018;74:48-54  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.03.007
  93. 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;119:225-233  https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13465
  94. Catalona WJ, Partin AW, Sanda MG, Wei JT, Klee GG, Bangma CH, et al. A multicenter study of [-2]pro-prostate specific antigen combined with prostate specific antigen and free prostate specific antigen for prostate cancer detection in the 2.0 to 10.0 ng/ml prostate specific antigen range. J Urol 2011;185:1650-1655  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.12.032
  95. de Rooij M, Israel B, Tummers M, Ahmed HU, Barrett T, Giganti F, et al. ESUR/ESUI consensus statements on multi-parametric MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: quality requirements for image acquisition, interpretation and radiologists' training. Eur Radiol 2020;30:5404-5416  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06929-z
  96. Giganti F, Allen C, Emberton M, Moore CM, Kasivisvanathan V; PRECISION Study Group. Prostate imaging quality (PI-QUAL): a new quality control scoring system for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate from the PRECISION trial. Eur Urol Oncol 2020;3:615-619 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2020.06.007