Clinical study on mpMRI/TRUS software fusion-guided transperineal prostate biopsy

Background: To enhance prostate cancer diagnosis, multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) combined with Transrectal Ultrasound (TRUS) fusion-guided biopsy has emerged as a promising technique. This study aimed to evaluate its clinical benefits over traditional TRUS-guided biopsy. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 83 patients diagnosed between January 2022 and April 2024. Patients were divided into two groups: 41 underwent mpMRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy, while 42 had traditional TRUS-guided biopsy. The baseline characteristics of both groups were similar, facilitating a direct comparison of diagnostic efficacy and complication rates. Results: The fusion-guided group showed a significantly higher detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer (21/41 vs. 12/42, p = 0.035). It also detected more clinically significant cases (20/41 vs. 11/42, p = 0.033). Notably, the fusion group experienced fewer complications, including no instances of hematochezia (p = 0.003) or infections (p = 0.012), and reported lower postoperative pain levels (Visual Analog Scale score 1.8 ± 0.78 vs. 2.33 ± 1.07, p = 0.012). Conclusions: The integration of mpMRI with TRUS in fusion-guided biopsy enhances the accuracy of detecting clinically significant prostate cancer, reduces procedural complications, and minimizes patient discomfort. This approach represents a significant advancement in prostate cancer management, improving both diagnostic outcomes and patient safety.

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging; Transrectal ultrasound; Transperineal prostate biopsy; Prostate cancer

[1] Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2020; 70: 7–30.

[2] Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. European Urology. 2017; 71: 618–629.

[3] Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al.; PRECISION Study Group Collaborators. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2018; 378: 1767–1777.

[4] Pinto F, Totaro A, Calarco A, Sacco E, Volpe A, Racioppi A, et al. Imaging in prostate cancer diagnosis: present role and future perspectives. Urologia Internationalis. 2011; 86: 373–382.

[5] 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. The Lancet. 2017; 389: 815–822.

[6] Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, Claudon M, Roy C, Mège-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. The Lancet Oncology. 2019; 20: 100–109.

[7] 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? European Urology. 2017; 71: 517–531.

[8] Stabile A, Giganti F, Emberton M, Moore CM. MRI in prostate cancer diagnosis: do we need to add standard sampling? A review of the last 5 years. Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases. 2018; 21: 473–487.

[9] 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. European Urology. 2021; 79: 243–262.