Oncology| Volume 102, P178-182, April 2017

Download started.


The Role of Ipsilateral and Contralateral Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Men With Unilateral Magnetic Resonance Imaging Lesion Undergoing Magnetic Resonance Imaging-ultrasound Fusion-targeted Prostate Biopsy

Published:November 18, 2016DOI:


      To determine how ipsilateral (ipsi) and contralateral (contra) systematic biopsies (SB) impact detection of clinically significant vs insignificant prostate cancer (PCa) in men with unilateral magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) lesion undergoing MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy (MRF-TB).

      Materials and Methods

      A total of 211 cases with 1 unilateral MRI lesion were subjected to SB and MRF-TB. Biopsy tissue cores from the MRF-TB, ipsi-SB, and contra-SB were analyzed separately.


      A direct relationship was observed between MRI suspicion score and (1) detection of any cancer, (2) Gleason 6 PCa, and (3) Gleason >6 PCa. MRF-TB alone, MRF-TB + ipsi-SB, and MRF-TB + contra-SB detected 64.1%, 89.1%, and 76.1% of all PCa, respectively; 53.5%, 81.4%, and 69.8% of Gleason 6 PCa, respectively; and 73.5%, 96.0%, and 81.6% of Gleason >6 PCa, respectively. MRF-TB + ipsi-SB detected 96% of clinically significant PCa and avoided detection of 18.6% of clinically insignificant PCa. MRF-TB + contra-SB detected 81.6% of clinically significant PCa and avoided detection of 30.2% of clinically insignificant PCa.


      Our study suggests that ipsi-SB should be added to MRF-TB, as detection of clinically significant PCa increases with only a modest increase in clinically insignificant PCa detection. Contra-SB in this setting may be deferred because it primarily detects clinically insignificant PCa.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • King C.R.
        • McNeal J.E.
        • Gill H.
        • Presti Jr, J.C.
        Extended prostate biopsy scheme improves reliability of Gleason grading: implications for radiotherapy patients.
        Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004; 59: 386-391
        • Siddiqui M.M.
        • Rais-Bahrami S.
        • Turkbey B.
        • et al.
        Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer.
        JAMA. 2015; 313: 390-397
        • Mendhiratta N.
        • Rosenkrantz A.B.
        • Meng X.
        • et al.
        Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion targeted prostate biopsy in a consecutive cohort of men with no previous biopsy: reduction of over detection through improved risk stratification.
        J Urol. 2015; 194: 1601-1606
        • Sonn G.A.
        • Chang E.
        • Natarajan S.
        • 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
        • Pinto P.A.
        • Chung P.H.
        • Rastinehad A.R.
        • 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
        • Siddiqui M.M.
        • Rais-Bahrami S.
        • Truong H.
        • et al.
        Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy.
        Eur Urol. 2013; 64: 713-719
        • Bjurlin M.A.
        • Meng X.
        • Le Nobin J.
        • et al.
        Optimization of prostate biopsy: the role of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in detection, localization and risk assessment.
        J Urol. 2014; 192: 648-658
        • Pokorny M.R.
        • de Rooij M.
        • Duncan E.
        • et al.
        Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy comparing prostate cancer detection by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy versus magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with subsequent MR-guided biopsy in men without previous prostate biopsies.
        Eur Urol. 2014; 66: 22-29
        • Rais-Bahrami S.
        • Siddiqui M.M.
        • Turkbey B.
        • et al.
        Utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging suspicion levels for detecting prostate cancer.
        J Urol. 2013; 190: 1721-1727
        • Villers A.
        • Puech P.
        • Mouton D.
        • Leroy X.
        • Ballereau C.
        • Lemaitre L.
        Dynamic contrast enhanced, pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging of localized prostate cancer for predicting tumor volume: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings.
        J Urol. 2006; 176: 2432-2437
        • Numao N.
        • Yoshida S.
        • Komai Y.
        • et al.
        Usefulness of pre-biopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and clinical variables to reduce initial prostate biopsy in men with suspected clinically localized prostate cancer.
        J Urol. 2013; 190: 502-508
        • Arumainayagam N.
        • Ahmed H.U.
        • Moore C.M.
        • et al.
        Multiparametric MR imaging for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: a validation cohort study with transperineal template prostate mapping as the reference standard.
        Radiology. 2013; 268: 761-769
        • Wysock J.S.
        • Rosenkrantz A.B.
        • Huang W.C.
        • 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
        • Meng X.
        • Rosenkrantz A.B.
        • Mendhiratta N.
        • et al.
        Relationship between prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), biopsy indication, and MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy outcomes.
        Eur Urol. 2016; 69: 512-517
        • Rosenkrantz A.B.
        • Kim S.
        • Lim R.P.
        • et al.
        Prostate cancer localization using multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and Likert scales.
        Radiology. 2013; 269: 482-492
        • Barentsz J.O.
        • Richenberg J.
        • Clements R.
        • et al.
        ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012.
        Eur Radiol. 2012; 22: 746-757
        • Siegel R.L.
        • Miller K.D.
        • Jemal A.
        Cancer statistics, 2016.
        CA Cancer J Clin. 2016; 66: 7-30
        • Etzioni R.
        • Tsodikov A.
        • Mariotto A.
        • et al.
        Quantifying the role of PSA screening in the US prostate cancer mortality decline.
        Cancer Causes Control. 2008; 19: 175-181
        • Welch H.G.
        • Fisher E.S.
        • Gottlieb D.J.
        • Barry M.J.
        Detection of prostate cancer via biopsy in the Medicare-SEER population during the PSA era.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007; 99: 1395-1400
        • Cooperberg M.R.
        • Broering J.M.
        • Kantoff P.W.
        • Carroll P.R.
        Contemporary trends in low risk prostate cancer: risk assessment and treatment.
        J Urol. 2007; 178: S14-S19
        • Mohler J.L.
        • Kantoff P.W.
        • Armstrong A.J.
        • et al.
        Prostate cancer, version 2.2014.
        J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2014; 12: 686-718
        • Mufarrij P.
        • Sankin A.
        • Godoy G.
        • Lepor H.
        Pathologic outcomes of candidates for active surveillance undergoing radical prostatectomy.
        Urology. 2010; 76: 689-692
        • Mendhiratta N.
        • Meng X.
        • Rosenkrantz A.B.
        • et al.
        Prebiopsy MRI and MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy in men with previous negative biopsies: impact on repeat biopsy strategies.
        Urology. 2015; 86: 1192-1199
        • Rastinehad A.R.
        • Abboud S.F.
        • George A.K.
        • et al.
        Reproducibility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and fusion guided prostate biopsy: multi-institutional external validation by a propensity score matched cohort.
        J Urol. 2016; 195: 1737-1743
        • Sonn G.A.
        • Natarajan S.
        • Margolis D.J.
        • et al.
        Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion device.
        J Urol. 2013; 189: 86-91
        • Oberlin D.T.
        • Casalino D.D.
        • Miller F.H.
        • et al.
        Diagnostic value of guided biopsies: fusion and cognitive-registration magnetic resonance imaging versus conventional ultrasound biopsy of the prostate.
        Urology. 2016; 92: 75-79
        • Epstein J.I.
        A new contemporary prostate cancer grading system.
        Pathol Int. 2015; 107: 205-207
        • Martin P.R.
        • Cool D.W.
        • Romagnoli C.
        • Fenster A.
        • Ward A.D.
        Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted, 3D transrectal ultrasound-guided fusion biopsy for prostate cancer: quantifying the impact of needle delivery error on diagnosis.
        Med Phys. 2014; 41: 073504
        • Le Nobin J.
        • Orczyk C.
        • Deng F.M.
        • et al.
        Prostate tumour volumes: evaluation of the agreement between magnetic resonance imaging and histology using novel co-registration software.
        BJU Int. 2014; 114: E105-E112