Advertisement
Surgical Pathology Clinics

Diagnosis and Pathologic Reporting of Prostate Cancer in the Era of MRI-Targeted Prostate Biopsy

  • Benjamin L. Coiner
    Affiliations
    Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, 2209 Garland Avenue, Nashville, TN 37232, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Soroush Rais-Bahrami
    Affiliations
    Department of Urology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA

    Department of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA

    O’Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Faculty Office Tower 1107, 510 20th Street South, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Jennifer B. Gordetsky
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author. Department of Pathology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, C-3320 MCN, 1161 21st Avenue South, Nashville, TN 37232.
    Affiliations
    Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA

    Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, C-3320 MCN, 1161 21st Avenue South, Nashville, TN 37232, USA
    Search for articles by this author
Published:October 12, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.path.2022.07.002

      Keywords

      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:

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

      References

        • George A.K.
        • Pinto P.A.
        • Rais-Bahrami S.
        Multiparametric MRI in the PSA screening era.
        Biomed Res Int. 2014; 2014: 465816-6
        • Glaser Z.A.
        • Porter K.K.
        • Thomas J.v.
        • et al.
        MRI findings guiding selection of active surveillance for prostate cancer: a review of emerging evidence.
        Translational Androl Urol. 2018; 7: S411-S419
        • Ahdoot M.
        • Wilbur A.R.
        • Reese S.E.
        • et al.
        MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis.
        N Engl J Med. 2020; 382: 917-928
        • Kasivisvanathan V.
        • Rannikko A.S.
        • Borghi M.
        • et al.
        MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis.
        N Engl J Med. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1801993
        • Gandaglia G.
        • Ploussard G.
        • Valerio M.
        • et al.
        The key combined value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, and magnetic resonance imaging–targeted and concomitant systematic biopsies for the prediction of adverse pathological features in prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatectomy.
        Eur Urol. 2020; 77: 733-741
        • Patel H.D.
        • Koehne E.L.
        • Shea S.M.
        • et al.
        Systematic versus targeted magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy among men with visible lesions.
        J Urol. 2022; 207: 108-117
        • 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
        • Ahmed H.U.
        • El-Shater Bosaily A.
        • Brown L.C.
        • et al.
        Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study.
        Lancet. 2017; 389: 815-822
        • Gordetsky J.B.
        • Saylor B.
        • Bae S.
        • et al.
        Prostate cancer management choices in patients undergoing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion biopsy compared to systematic biopsy.
        Urol Oncol. 2018; 36: 241.e7-13
        • Drost F.-J.H.
        • Osses D.
        • Nieboer D.
        • et al.
        Prostate magnetic resonance imaging, with or without magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer: a cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Eur Urol. 2020; 77: 78-94
        • Dutruel S.P.
        • Jeph S.
        • Margolis D.J.A.
        • et al.
        PI-RADS: what is new and how to use it.
        Abdom Radiol. 2020; 45: 3951-3960
        • Hong C.W.
        • Rais-Bahrami S.
        • Walton-Diaz A.
        • et al.
        Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound (MRI-US) fusion-guided prostate biopsies obtained from axial and sagittal approaches.
        BJU Int. 2015; 115: 772-779
        • Padhani A.R.
        • Weinreb J.
        • Rosenkrantz A.B.
        • et al.
        Prostate imaging-reporting and data system steering committee: PI-RADS v2 status update and future directions.
        Eur Urol. 2019; 75: 385-396
        • Gennaro K.
        • Porter K.
        • Gordetsky J.
        • et al.
        Imaging as a personalized biomarker for prostate cancer risk stratification.
        Diagnostics. 2018; 8: 80
        • Wegelin O.
        • van Melick H.H.E.
        • Hooft L.
        • et al.
        Comparing three different techniques for magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsies: a systematic review of in-bore versus magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion versus cognitive registration. is there a preferred technique?.
        Eur Urol. 2017; : 517-531https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.07.041
        • Epstein J.I.
        • Amin M.B.
        • Fine S.W.
        • et al.
        The 2019 genitourinary pathology society (GUPS) white paper on contemporary grading of prostate cancer.
        Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2021; : 461-493https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2020-0015-ra
        • Klotz L.
        • Chin J.
        • Black P.C.
        • et al.
        Comparison of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy with systematic transrectal ultrasonography biopsy for biopsy-naive men at risk for prostate cancer: a phase 3 randomized clinical trial.
        JAMA Oncol. 2021; 7: 534-542
        • Bjurlin M.A.
        • Carroll P.R.
        • Eggener S.
        • et al.
        Update of the standard operating procedure on the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis, staging and management of prostate cancer.
        J Urol. 2020; 203: 706-712
        • O’Connor L.P.
        • Wang A.Z.
        • Yerram N.K.
        • et al.
        Combined MRI-targeted plus systematic confirmatory biopsy improves risk stratification for patients enrolling on active surveillance for prostate cancer.
        Urology. 2020; 144: 164-170
        • Lai W.S.
        • Gordetsky J.B.
        • Thomas J.v.
        • et al.
        Factors predicting prostate cancer upgrading on magnetic resonance imaging–targeted biopsy in an active surveillance population.
        Cancer. 2017; 123: 1941-1948
        • Logan J.K.
        • Rais-Bahrami S.
        • Turkbey B.
        • et al.
        Current status of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography fusion software platforms for guidance of prostate biopsies.
        BJU Int. 2014; : 641-652https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12593
        • Turkbey B.
        • Rosenkrantz A.B.
        • Haider M.A.
        • et al.
        Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.
        Eur Urol. 2019; : 340-351https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
        • Padhani A.R.
        • Barentsz J.
        • Villeirs G.
        • et al.
        PI-RADS Steering Committee: the PI-RADS Multiparametric MRI and MRI-directed Biopsy Pathway.
        Radiology. 2019; 292: 464-474
        • Fang A.M.
        • Rais-Bahrami S.
        Magnetic resonance imaging–based risk calculators optimize selection for prostate biopsy among biopsy-naive men.
        Cancer. 2021; https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.33872
        • Mazzone E.
        • Stabile A.
        • Pellegrino F.
        • et al.
        Positive predictive value of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Eur Urol Oncol. 2021; 4: 697-713
        • Rosenkrantz A.B.
        • Verma S.
        • Choyke P.
        • et al.
        Prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a prior negative biopsy: a consensus statement by AUA and SAR.
        J Urol. 2016; 196: 1613-1618
        • Sanda M.G.
        • Cadeddu J.A.
        • Kirkby E.
        • et al.
        Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part II: recommended approaches and details of specific care options.
        J Urol. 2018; 199: 990-997
        • Lam T.B.L.
        • MacLennan S.
        • Willemse P.P.M.
        • et al.
        EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG prostate cancer guideline panel consensus statements for deferred treatment with curative intent for localised prostate cancer from an international collaborative study (DETECTIVE Study).
        Eur Urol. 2019; : 790-813https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.020
        • Gordetsky J.B.
        • Hirsch M.S.
        • Rais-Bahrami S.
        MRI-targeted prostate biopsy: key considerations for pathologists.
        Histopathology. 2020; : 18-25https://doi.org/10.1111/his.14113
        • Leenders G.
        • Kwast T.
        • Grignon D.J.
        • et al.
        The 2019 international society of urological pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on grading of prostatic carcinoma.
        Am J Surg Pathol. 2020; 44: e87-e99
        • Lu A.J.
        • Syed J.S.
        • Ghabili K.
        • et al.
        Role of core number and location in targeted magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy.
        Eur Urol. 2019; 76: 14-17
        • Kenigsberg A.P.
        • Renson A.
        • Rosenkrantz A.B.
        • et al.
        Optimizing the number of cores targeted during prostate magnetic resonance imaging fusion target biopsy.
        Eur Urol Oncol. 2018; 1: 418-425
        • Song G.
        • Ruan M.
        • Wang H.
        • et al.
        How many targeted biopsy cores are needed for clinically significant prostate cancer detection during transperineal magnetic resonance imaging ultrasound fusion biopsy?.
        J Urol. 2020; 204: 1202-1208
        • Subramanian N.
        • Recchimuzzi D.Z.
        • Xi Y.
        • et al.
        Impact of the number of cores on the prostate cancer detection rate in men undergoing in-bore magnetic resonance imaging-guided targeted biopsies.
        J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2021; 45: 203-209
        • Seyfried N.
        • Mahran A.
        • Panda A.
        • et al.
        Diagnostic yield of incremental biopsy cores and second lesion sampling for in-gantry mri-guided prostate biopsy.
        Am J Roentgenol. 2020; 217: 908-918https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.20.24918
        • Gordetsky J.B.
        • Schultz L.
        • Porter K.K.
        • et al.
        Defining the optimal method for reporting prostate cancer grade and tumor extent on magnetic resonance/ultrasound fusion–targeted biopsies.
        Hum Pathol. 2018; 76: 68-75
        • Deng F.-M.
        • Isaila B.
        • Jones D.
        • et al.
        Optimal method for reporting prostate cancer grade in MRI-targeted biopsies.
        Am J Surg Pathol. 2022; 46: 44-50
        • Glaser Z.A.
        • Gordetsky J.B.
        • Bae S.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of MSKCC Preprostatectomy nomogram in men who undergo MRI-targeted prostate biopsy prior to radical prostatectomy.
        Urol Oncol. 2019; 37: 970-975
        • Gordetsky J.B.
        • Ullman D.
        • Schultz L.
        • et al.
        Histologic findings associated with false-positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging performed for prostate cancer detection.
        Hum Pathol. 2019; 83: 159-165
        • Rais-Bahrami S.
        • Nix J.W.
        • Turkbey B.
        • et al.
        Clinical and multiparametric MRI signatures of granulomatous prostatitis.
        Abdom Radiol. 2017; 42: 1956-1962
        • Sheridan A.D.
        • Nath S.K.
        • Aneja S.
        • et al.
        MRI-ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 category 5 lesions found false-positive at multiparametric prostate MRI.
        Am J Roentgenol. 2018; 210: W218-W225
        • Hupe M.C.
        • Offermann A.
        • Tharun L.
        • et al.
        Histomorphological analysis of false positive PI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions.
        Urol Oncol. 2020; 38: 636.e7-12
        • Stavrinides V.
        • Syer T.
        • Hu Y.
        • et al.
        False positive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging phenotypes in the biopsy-naïve prostate: are they distinct from significant cancer-associated lesions? lessons from PROMIS.
        Eur Urol. 2021; 79: 20-29
        • Gold S.A.
        • Shih J.H.
        • Rais-Bahrami S.
        • et al.
        When to biopsy the seminal vesicles: a validated multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and target driven model to detect seminal vesicle invasion of prostate cancer.
        J Urol. 2019; 201: 943-949
        • Wu C.L.
        • Kim M.
        • Wu S.
        • et al.
        Transperineal multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy combined with standard template improves perineural invasion detection.
        Hum Pathol. 2021; 117: 101-107
        • Gordetsky J.B.
        • Nix J.W.
        • Rais-Bahrami S.
        Perineural invasion in prostate cancer is more frequently detected by multiparametric MRI targeted biopsy compared with standard biopsy.
        Am J Surg Pathol. 2016; 40: 490-494
        • Baumgartner E.M.
        • Porter K.K.
        • Nix J.W.
        • et al.
        Detection of extraprostatic disease and seminal vesicle invasion in patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsies.
        Translational Androl Urol. 2018; 7: S392-S396
        • Prendeville S.
        • Gertner M.
        • Maganti M.
        • et al.
        Role of magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in detection of prostate cancer harboring adverse pathological features of intraductal carcinoma and invasive cribriform carcinoma.
        J Urol. 2018; 200: 104-113
        • Gao J.
        • Zhang Q.
        • Fu Y.
        • et al.
        Combined clinical characteristics and multiparametric MRI parameters for prediction of cribriform morphology in intermediate-risk prostate cancer patients.
        Urol Oncol. 2020; 38: 216-224
        • Truong M.
        • Rais-Bahrami S.
        • Nix J.W.
        • et al.
        Perineural invasion by prostate cancer on MR/US fusion targeted biopsy is associated with extraprostatic extension and early biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy.
        Hum Pathol. 2017; 66: 206-211
        • Gordetsky J.B.
        • Thomas J.V.
        • Nix J.W.
        • et al.
        Higher prostate cancer grade groups are detected in patients undergoing multiparametric MRI-targeted biopsy compared with standard biopsy.
        Am J Surg Pathol. 2017; 41: 101-105
        • Coker M.A.
        • Glaser Z.A.
        • Gordetsky J.B.
        • et al.
        Targets missed: predictors of MRI-targeted biopsy failing to accurately localize prostate cancer found on systematic biopsy.
        Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2018; 21: 549-555
        • Williams C.
        • Ahdoot M.
        • Daneshvar M.A.
        • et al.
        Why does magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy miss clinically significant cancer?.
        J Urol. 2022; 207: 95-107
        • Elfatairy K.K.
        • Filson C.P.
        • Sanda M.G.
        • et al.
        In-Bore MRI-guided prostate biopsies in patients with prior positive transrectal us-guided biopsy results: pathologic outcomes and predictors of missed cancers.
        Radiol Imaging Cancer. 2020; 2: e190078