Home > Journals > Minerva Urology and Nephrology > Past Issues > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2018 June;70(3) > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2018 June;70(3):264-74



Publishing options
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian


Publication history
Cite this article as


REVIEW   Free accessfree

Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2018 June;70(3):264-74

DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.18.03048-5


language: English

An update on prostate biopsy in the era of magnetic resonance imaging

Antonio CICIONE 1 , Cosimo DE NUNZIO 2, Stefano MANNO 3, Rocco DAMIANO 3, Alessandro POSTI 1, Estevao LIMA 4, Andrea TUBARO 2, Filippo BALLONI 1

1 Unit of Urology, Città di Castello Hospital, ASL Umbria 1, Città di Castello, Perugia, Italy; 2 Department of Urology, Sant’Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy; 3 Unit of Urology, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy; 4 Life and Health Sciences Research Institute, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal


INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer (PCa) is a singular disease owing to absence of imaging technique able to detect suspicious glandular area at higher risk of disease. Nowadays, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been used as a way to detect PCa and simplify targeting prostate biopsy (PB). The aim of this study is to review the most recent data regarding standard BP and MRI-guided PB.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A comprehensive systematic MEDLINE search was performed in December 2017 for English-language reports by using the following terms: “prostate biopsy,” “multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging,” “prostate cancer,” “transrectal and transperineal ultrasound,” “target biopsy.” Previous published reviews and recent published original articles were preferred in order to meet our study scope.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Retrieved studies of greater interest were reported in two main sections: standard PB and MRI-guided BP. Thus, the main items regarding PB were analyzed. Briefly, clinical suspicious of PCa is based on prostate specific antigen level and digital rectal examination findings although a PCa risk assessment through a nomogram risk calculator is nowadays advised. Ten-eighteen biopsy cores, depending on prostate volume, and peripheral sampling seem the suitable scheme for initial biopsy while a saturation template (>20 cores including transitional prostate area) is widely used in case of repeat PB. Performing a local anesthesia is now the standard of care with several available techniques. No difference exists in term of PCa detection rate between transperienal and transrectal approaches however the last one is mostly used. The use of MRI-guided biopsy seems to be a promising imaging technique able to identify an index lesion at higher suspicious of PCa. In particular, MRI shows a higher accuracy than standard PB in the detection of clinically significant PCa. No general consensus exists on which MRI-guided biopsy should be used with three different ways currently available to take biopsy core. However, the initial MRI cognitive PB has been replaced by fusion MRI technique to guide biopsy with reproducible results. Absence of standardization founded in initial MRI studies has been recently revised by introduction of common criteria to assess PCa presence on MRI.
CONCLUSIONS: PB is the cornerstone in diagnosis and management of PCa. Although ultrasound transrectal and transperineal PB are still considered as the standard, emerging data confirm the role of MRI-guided biopsy, particularly in patients with a previous negative biopsy. However, MRI costs and the moderate inter-reader reproducibility of the exam are still significant concerns requiring further studies to define the right role of MRI in the PCa diagnostic pathway.

KEY WORDS: Prostate - Biopsy - Magnetic resonance imaging - Ultrasonography

top of page