Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 12, 2025

09:11
Use of MRI-ultrasound Fusion to Achieve Targeted Prostate Biopsy
Published on: April 9, 2019
21.8K
A prospective study on inter-operator variability in semi-robotic software-based MRI/TRUS-fusion targeted prostate
Fabian Derigs1,2, Samuel Doryumu3, Fabian Tollens4
1Department of Urology and Urosurgery, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany. fabian.derigs@umm.de.
World Journal of Urology
|November 26, 2021
Summary
Inter-operator variability in MRI/ultrasound-fusion prostate biopsy (FB) affects targeted biopsy (TB) accuracy, particularly for smaller lesions. Improvements in fusion, guidance, and automation are needed for better reproducibility.
Area of Science:
- Urology
- Medical Imaging
- Oncology
Background:
- Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasound-fusion biopsy (FB) is a multi-step procedure.
- Each step in FB can impact targeted biopsy (TB) accuracy, potentially leading to false-negative results.
- Understanding inter-operator variability is crucial for optimizing TB accuracy.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the inter-operator variability of software-based fusion TB.
- To evaluate the impact of different urologists targeting the same MRI-visible lesions.
- To identify factors contributing to variability in TB accuracy.
Main Methods:
- Prospective study involving 142 patients and 31 urologists.
- Software-based FB performed by two different urologists per patient on 172 lesions.
- Analysis of mismatches in detecting overall prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (csPCa) between the two biopsies.
- Uni- and multivariable analyses to identify factors influencing variability.
Main Results:
- A mismatch in overall PCa detection between the two biopsies occurred in 11.6% of lesions (10.6% of patients).
- Patient-based mismatch for csPCa detection was observed in 14.8% of cases.
- Smaller lesion size was a significant predictor of biopsy mismatches (OR 9.19, p < 0.001).
- No significant difference in PCa or csPCa detection rates between the two urologists was found.
Conclusions:
- Reproducibility and precision in targeting, especially for small lesions, remain limited with current software-based FB techniques.
- Further advancements in image fusion, segmentation, and needle-guidance systems are necessary.
- Automation in the FB process may help improve consistency and accuracy.
Keywords:
AccuracyMultiparametric magnetic resonance imagingProstatic neoplasmReproducibilitySoftware-based fusion biopsySurgeon
