Combining Prostate MRI and Microultrasound to Omit Systematic Biopsy

Purpose: The diagnosis of prostate cancer often includes MRI-guided biopsy. Many surgeons perform targeted and systematic biopsies to compensate for registration errors between MRI and conventional ultrasound (5-7 mHz). Using 29 mHz, microultrasound visualizes prostate cancers, enabling visual confirmation of target sampling. We sought to evaluate whether an MRI + microultrasound targeted biopsy could omit systematic biopsy. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 155 men undergoing transperineal prostate biopsy at the University of Florida. Eighty-three men met inclusion criteria: MRI prior, microultrasound guidance, and targeted and systematic biopsy. The MRI target was visualized with microultrasound and biopsied. We graded each region of interest (ROI) using Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS) and Prostate Risk Identification using Micro-Ultrasound (PRI-MUS) scores. We considered cores containing Grade Group ≥ 2 (GG ≥ 2) as clinically significant prostate cancer. The primary endpoint was the GG ≥ 2 cancer detection rate (CDR = GG ≥ 2 targeted cores/GG ≥ 2 all cores). Results: Patients with PI-RADS and PRI-MUS scores ≥ 3 had a targeted-only CDR of 93.3%. Those with scores ≥ 4 (dual imaging visible) had a CDR of 97.4%. Systematic without targeted cores had CDR of 61.5%. One patient (1.2%) had GG ≥ 2 detected on systematic biopsy alone. Area under the curve (AUC) values for PI-RADS, PRI-MUS, and dual imaging visible lesions were 0.73, 0.69, and 0.73, respectively ( P = NS). Conclusions: Only 1 patient, with a dual imaging visible ROI, had GG ≥ 2 detected on systematic biopsy but not in the ROI. Otherwise, > 97% of clinically significant prostate cancer were detected with targeted biopsies alone. In dual imaging visible ROIs, surgeons may consider omitting systematic biopsy.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
JU Open Plus
Published
2025-02-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1097/ju9.0000000000000245
Citations
7
Primary Topic
Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
10.63
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Combining Prostate MRI and Microultrasound to Omit Systematic Biopsy

Paul L. Crispen, Padraic O’Malley, Arkaprava Roy, Brianna Nguyen et al.
7 citations
JU Open Plus
Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
10.63
article

Combining Prostate MRI and Microultrasound to Omit Systematic Biopsy

Paul L. Crispen, Padraic O’Malley, Arkaprava Roy, Brianna Nguyen, K. J. Walsh, Rani Ashouri, Jake Pensa, Wayne Brisbane, Joseph R. Grajo, Sara M. Falzarano, Ji‐Hyun Lee, Zhongyue Zhang, Diana Luca
article en
7 citations

Abstract

Purpose: The diagnosis of prostate cancer often includes MRI-guided biopsy. Many surgeons perform targeted and systematic biopsies to compensate for registration errors between MRI and conventional ultrasound (5-7 mHz). Using 29 mHz, microultrasound visualizes prostate cancers, enabling visual confirmation of target sampling. We sought to evaluate whether an MRI + microultrasound targeted biopsy could omit systematic biopsy. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 155 men undergoing transperineal prostate biopsy at the University of Florida. Eighty-three men met inclusion criteria: MRI prior, microultrasound guidance, and targeted and systematic biopsy. The MRI target was visualized with microultrasound and biopsied. We graded each region of interest (ROI) using Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS) and Prostate Risk Identification using Micro-Ultrasound (PRI-MUS) scores. We considered cores containing Grade Group ≥ 2 (GG ≥ 2) as clinically significant prostate cancer. The primary endpoint was the GG ≥ 2 cancer detection rate (CDR = GG ≥ 2 targeted cores/GG ≥ 2 all cores). Results: Patients with PI-RADS and PRI-MUS scores ≥ 3 had a targeted-only CDR of 93.3%. Those with scores ≥ 4 (dual imaging visible) had a CDR of 97.4%. Systematic without targeted cores had CDR of 61.5%. One patient (1.2%) had GG ≥ 2 detected on systematic biopsy alone. Area under the curve (AUC) values for PI-RADS, PRI-MUS, and dual imaging visible lesions were 0.73, 0.69, and 0.73, respectively ( P = NS). Conclusions: Only 1 patient, with a dual imaging visible ROI, had GG ≥ 2 detected on systematic biopsy but not in the ROI. Otherwise, > 97% of clinically significant prostate cancer were detected with targeted biopsies alone. In dual imaging visible ROIs, surgeons may consider omitting systematic biopsy.

JU Open PlusVol. 3(2)
University of California, Los Angeles (US), University of Florida (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
10.63
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.