Efficacy of transrectal mpMRI / TRUS fusion-guided biopsy of the prostate: results of a study in 318 patients
Authors:
- 5 April 2026
- journal article
- Published by Rostov State Medical University in Urology Herald
- Vol. 14 (1)
Abstract
Introduction . Prostate cancer remains one of the leading oncological diseases among men, necessitating precise diagnostic strategies. Contemporary approaches, including multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) with PI-RADS scoring and targeted biopsy, enhance detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), reduce unnecessary procedures, and minimize complications. Objective . To evaluate the efficacy of transrectal mpMRI/transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion-guided prostate biopsy in detecting csPCa. Materials & methods . We prospectively evaluated 318 patients who underwent transrectal mpMRI/TRUS fusion-guided prostate biopsy. All patients had pre-biopsy mpMRI with PI-RADS scoring, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, PSA density, and digital rectal examination (DRE). Biopsies employed a combined approach: targeted sampling of mpMRIidentified lesions plus systematic sampling. Prostate cancer detection rates (csPCa defined as ISUP grade ≥ 2) were correlated with PI-RADS score, PSA density, and DRE findings. Detection rates were compared between biopsy-naïve and repeat-biopsy patients. Complications were systematically recorded. Results . csPCa was detected in 40% of patients overall (43% in biopsy-naïve vs. 35% in repeat-biopsy patients; p > 0.05). Lesions scored PI-RADS 4 – 5 yielded significantly higher csPCa detection rates than PI-RADS 3 lesions. Among PI-RADS 3 cases, PSA density > 0.15 ng/mL/cm³ predicted higher csPCa risk, while lower values indicated low risk. Positive DRE also correlated with csPCa detection. Targeted biopsy detected most csPCa cases, but systematic sampling increased the overall yield by 10%. No severe complications (e.g., sepsis or major hemorrhage) occurred; minor, transient events such as hematuria or fever affected < 5% of patients. Conclusions . Transrectal mpMRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy is highly effective for csPCa detection. Pre-biopsy mpMRI combined with targeted plus systematic sampling optimizes diagnostic yield while maintaining a favorable safety profile.Keywords
This publication has 18 references indexed in Scilit:
- Transperineal vs Transrectal Prostate Biopsy—The PREVENT Randomized Clinical TrialJAMA Oncology, 2024
- EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer—2024 Update. Part I: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative IntentEuropean Urology, 2024
- Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging–targeted Biopsies for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Final Results of the Randomized PERFECT trial (CCAFU-PR1)European Urology Oncology, 2024
- Prediction of Significant Prostate Cancer in Equivocal Magnetic Resonance Imaging Lesions: A High-volume International Multicenter StudyEuropean Urology Focus, 2023
- 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-analysisEuropean Urology Oncology, 2021
- Transperineal Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Targeted Biopsy May Perform Better Than Transrectal Route in the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysisClinical Genitourinary Cancer, 2019
- Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancerCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2019
- The FUTURE Trial: A Multicenter Randomised Controlled Trial on Target Biopsy Techniques Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in Patients with Prior Negative BiopsiesEuropean Urology, 2019
- Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic studyThe Lancet Oncology, 2019
- Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory studyThe Lancet, 2017