UROGENITAL RADIOLOGY / REVIEW PAPER
Figure from article: In-bore MRI-guided prostate...
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Prostate cancer is the second most common malignancy in men and a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Accurate diagnosis is essential to guide therapeutic decision-making and to avoid the overtreatment of indolent tumors. In-bore magnetic resonance imaging-guided prostate biopsy (IB-MRGB) represents the most precise magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted technique for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). This review summarizes the current evidence, technical aspects, clinical relevance, and future perspectives of IB-MRGB. A comprehensive literature review was performed using PubMed, Scopus, and Embase, including studies that evaluated diagnostic performance, procedural workflow, and integration with focal therapies. IB-MRGB demonstrates high sensitivity (80-96%) and specificity (82-90%) for the detection of csPCa. It is particularly effective in biopsy-naïve patients with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) ≥ 3 lesions, in men with prior negative transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies but persistent clinical suspicion, and in the context of active surveillance or focal therapy planning. Key advantages include superior lesion targeting and a reduction in the overdiagnosis of Gleason 3 + 3 tumors, whereas the main limitations are higher cost, longer procedure duration, and limited MRI availability. IB-MRGB aligns closely with the principles of precision oncology by enabling accurate diagnosis, risk stratification, and optimized treatment planning. Ongoing developments in artificial intelligence, radiomics, and MRI-guided interventions are expected to further enhance diagnostic efficiency and expand the clinical role of this technique.
REFERENCES (27)
1.
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021; 71: 209 249.
 
2.
Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Brunckhorst O, Darraugh J, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer – 2024 update. Part I: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2024; 86: 148-163.
 
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. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 1767-1777.
 
4.
Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI, Ricker W, Schaeffer EM. Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol 2011; 186: 1830 1834.
 
5.
Turkbey B, Choyke PL. Multiparametric MRI and prostate cancer diagnosis and risk stratification. Curr Opin Urol 2012; 22: 310 315.
 
6.
de Rooij M, Hamoen EHJ, Fütterer JJ, Barentsz JO, Rovers MM. Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 230 238.
 
7.
Woo S, Suh CH, Kim SY, Cho JY, Kim SH. Diagnostic performance of PI-RADS v2 for detection of prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2017; 72: 177 188.
 
8.
Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol 2019; 76: 340 351.
 
9.
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 1767 1777.
 
10.
Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George AK, Rothwax J, Shakir N, et al. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 2015; 313: 390 397.
 
11.
Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, Hooft L, Bosch JLHR, Reitsma HB, Barentsz JO, Somford DM. Comparing three different techniques for magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsies: a systematic review of in-bore versus MRI-TRUS fusion versus cognitive registration. Is there a preferred technique? Eur Urol 2017; 71: 517-531.
 
12.
Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MG. Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2015; 68: 438-450.
 
13.
Franiel T, Hamm B, Hricak H. MRI-guided prostate interventions: in-bore biopsy and focal therapy. Radiology 2014; 271: 901 915.
 
14.
Penzkofer T, Tuncali K, Fedorov A, Song SE, Tokuda J, Fennessy FM, et al. Transperineal in-bore 3-T MR imaging-guided prostate biopsy: a prospective clinical observational study. Radiology 2015; 274: 170-180.
 
15.
Elwenspoek MMC, Sheppard AL, McInnes MDF, Merriel SWD, Rowe EWJ, Bryant RJ, et al. Comparison of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy with systematic biopsy alone for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open 2019; 2: e198427. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.8427.
 
16.
Bass EJ, Pantovic A, Connor MJ, Loeb S, Rastinehad AR, Winkler M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy techniques compared to transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2022; 25: 174-179.
 
17.
Chatterjee A, Gallan A, Fan X, Medved M, Akurati P, Bourne RM, et al. Prostate cancers invisible on multiparametric MRI: pathologic features in correlation with whole-mount prostatectomy. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15: 5825. DOI: 10.3390/cancers15245825.
 
18.
Stavrinides V, Giganti F, Emberton M, Moore CM. MRI in active surveillance: a critical review. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2019; 22: 5-15.
 
19.
Cornud F, Bomers J, Fütterer JJ, Ghai S, Reijnen JS, Tempany C. MR imaging-guided prostate interventional imaging: ready for a clinical use? Diagn Interv Imaging 2018; 99: 743-753.
 
20.
Elkhoury FF, Simopoulos DN, Marks LS. MR-guided biopsy and focal therapy: new options for prostate cancer management. Curr Opin Urol 2018; 28: 93-101.
 
21.
Rembak Szynkiewicz J, Wojcieszek P, Hebda A, Mazgaj P, Badziński A, Stasik-Pres G, et al. In bore MR prostate biopsy – initial experience. Endokrynol Pol 2022; 73: 712 724.
 
22.
Mertan FV, Greer MD, Borofsky S, Kabakus IM, Merino MJ, Wood BJ, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of recurrent prostate cancer. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2016; 25: 139 147.
 
23.
Calais J, Czernin J, Cao M, Kishan AU, Hegde JV, Shaverdian N, et al. 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT mapping of prostate cancer biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy in 270 patients with a PSA level of less than 1.0 ng/mL: impact on salvage radiotherapy planning. J Nucl Med 2018; 59: 230-237.
 
24.
Cuocolo R, Cipullo MB, Stanzione A, Romeo V, Green R, Cantoni V, et al. Machine learning for the identification of clinically significant prostate cancer on MRI: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2020; 30: 6877-6887.
 
25.
Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1: 2019 update of Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur Urol 2019; 76: 340 351.
 
26.
Liu J, Dunne J, Touijer KA, Perera M, Lawrentschuk N. The performance and role of PSMA PET scans in localised prostate cancer. Soc Int Urol J 2025; 6: 10. DOI: 10.3390/siuj6010010.
 
27.
Oprea-Lager DE, MacLennan S, Bjartell A, Briganti A, Burger IA, de Jong I, et al. European Association of Nuclear Medicine Focus 5: consensus on molecular imaging and theranostics in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2024; 85: 49-60.
 
ISSN:1899-0967
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top