Fusion prostate biopsy: tips and tricks to improve rigid registration

Background: We introduced tips and tricks to improve the rate of correct rigid registration during fusion prostate biopsy: (1) creation of similar anatomical condition during multiparametric magnetic resonance of the prostate (mpMRI) and trans rectal ultrasound (TRUS) (bladder and rectum should be empty and the use of MRI trans rectal probe avoided), (2) revision of mpMRI performed outside our institution by our radiologist, (3) the use of the boundary between transitional/central and peripheral zone of the prostate as the main anatomical landmark (less prone than the peripheral shape to deformation) at the level of the target, (4) repeating the registration at the level of every target or after unintended movement of the patients. Methods: We reviewed our internal database to assess the impact of our tips and tricks. Patients submitted to radical prostatectomy after fusion biopsy in our centre over the last two years were selected. Biopsy positivity in a sextant with cancer at the radical prostatectomy and a suspected mpMRI (3–5) was computed as a correct registration, the positivity of a biopsy in an adjacent sextant as a quasi-correct registration. Results: 49 out of 59 and 5 out 59 correct and quasi-correct registrations were finally computed. Assuming acceptable 90% of correct and 95% of quasi-correct rate, the expected figures are respectively 53 and 3. The chi-square goodness of fit test show a X square value of 2.97 and a p-value of 0.23. Therefore, the null hypothesis that the two distributions are homogeneous cannot be rejected. Conclusions: The introduction of some tips and trick in the daily clinical practice contributed to some extent to a satisfactory rate of correct rigid registration in our series of fusion prostate biopsies.

prostatic neoplasms; multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging; needle biopsy

[1] Watts KL, Frechette L, Muller B, Ilinksy D, Kovac E, Sankin A, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing cog-nitive vs. image-guided fusion prostate biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer. Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations. 2020; 38: 734.e19–734.e25.

[2] Venderink W, de Rooij M, Sedelaar JPM, Huisman HJ, Fütterer JJ. Elastic Versus Rigid Image Registration in Magnetic Reso-nance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Prostate Biopsy: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. European Urology Fo-cus. 2019; 4: 219–227.

[3] Sokolakis I, Pyrgidis N, Koneval L, Krebs M, Thurner A, Kübler H, et al. Usability and diagnostic accuracy of differ-ent MRI/ultrasound-guided fusion biopsy systems for the detec-tion of clinically significant and insignificant prostate cancer: a prospective cohort study. World Journal of Urology. 2021; 39: 4101–4108.

[4] Hale GR, Czarniecki M, Cheng A, Bloom JB, Seifabadi R, Gold SA, et al. Comparison of Elastic and Rigid Registration dur-ing Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion-Guided Prostate Biopsy: a Multi-Operator Phantom Study. The Journal of Urology. 2018; 200: 1114–1121.

[5] Lasso A, Avni S, Fichtinger G. ‘Targeting error simulator for image-guided prostate needle placement’, Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. Buenos Aires, Argentina. 2010.

[6] 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 In-tent. European Urology. 2021; 79: 243–262.

[7] Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data Sys-tem Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. European Urology. 2019; 76: 340–351.