Efficacy of transrectal mpMRI / TRUS fusion-guided biopsy of the prostate: results of a study in 318 patients

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.

1. Kaprin A.D. Malignant neoplasms in Russia in 2023 (incidence and mortality). Moscow: P.A. Gerzen Research Institute of Oncology – a branch of the Federal State Budgetary Institution “NMITs Radiology” of the Ministry of Health of Russia; 2024. (In Russian).

2. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, ParmarMK, Collaco-Moraes Y, Ward K, Hindley RG, Freeman A, Kirkham AP, Oldroyd R, Parker C, Emberton M; PROMIS study group. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389(10071):815-822. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1

3. Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, Van den Broeck T, Brunckhorst O, Darraugh J, Eberli D, De Meerleer G, De Santis M, Farolfi A, Gandaglia G, Gillessen S, Grivas N, Henry AM, Lardas M, van Leenders GJLH, Liew M, Linares Espinos E, Oldenburg J, van Oort IM, Oprea-Lager DE, Ploussard G, Roberts MJ, Rouvière O, Schoots IG, Schouten N, Smith EJ, Stranne J, Wiegel T, Willemse PM, Tilki D. EAU-EANM-ESTROESUR-ISUP-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2024 Update. Part I: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2024;86(2):148-163. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2024.03.027

4. Windisch O, Valerio M, Yee CH, Gontero P, Bakir B, Kastner C, Ahmed HU, De Nunzio C, de la Rosette J. Biopsy strategies in the era of mpMRI: a comprehensive review. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2025;28(2):288- 297. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-024-00884-2

5. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, Briganti A, Budäus L, Hellawell G, Hindley RG, Roobol MJ, Eggener S, Ghei M, Villers A, Bladou F, Villeirs GM, Virdi J, Boxler S, Robert G, Singh PB, Venderink W, Hadaschik BA, Ruffion A, Hu JC, Margolis D, Crouzet S, Klotz L, Taneja SS, Pinto P, Gill I, Allen C, Giganti F, Freeman A, Morris S, Punwani S, Williams NR, Brew-Graves C, Deeks J, Takwoingi Y, Emberton M, Moore CM; PRECISION Study Group Collaborators. MRI-Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate-Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(19):1767-1777. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1801993

6. Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, Claudon M, Roy C, Mège-Lechevallier F, Decaussin-Petrucci M, Dubreuil-Chambardel M, Magaud L, Remontet L, Ruffion A, Colombel M, Crouzet S, Schott AM, Lemaitre L, Rabilloud M, Grenier N; MRI-FIRST Investigators. Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(1):100-109. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30569-2

7. Drost FH, Osses DF, Nieboer D, Steyerberg EW, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ, Schoots IG. Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;4(4):CD012663. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012663.pub2

8. Sigle A, Borkowetz A, von Hardenberg J, Drerup M, Kornienko K, Kwe J, Wenzel M, Mandel P, Westhoff N, Rieger C, Hoffmann MA, Ortner G, Mahjoub S; GeSRU Academics Prostate Cancer Group. Prediction of Significant Prostate Cancer in Equivocal Magnetic Resonance Imaging Lesions: A High-volume International Multicenter Study. Eur Urol Focus. 2023;9(4):606-613. DOI: 10.1016/j.euf.2023.01.020

9. Tu X, Liu Z, Chang T, Qiu S, Xu H, Bao Y, Yang L, Wei Q. Transperineal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted Biopsy May Perform Better Than Transrectal Route in the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019;17(5):e860-e870. DOI: 10.1016/j.clgc.2019.05.006

10. Romanov R.A., Koryakin A.V., Tolstov I.S., Kirpatovskiy V.I., Alekseev B.Ya. Transperineal fusion prostate biopsy. Diagnostic value in comparison with a standard biopsy. Experimental and Clinical Urology. 2023;16(1):48-54. (In Russian). DOI: 10.29188/2222-8543-2023-16-1-48-54

11. Keln A.A., Zyryanov A.V., Surikov A.S., Ponomarev A.V., Kupchin A.V., Znobischev V.G., Salnikov M.A. Fusion prostate biopsy in patients with previous negative standard prostate biopsy. Urology Herald. 2017;5(4):39-46. (In Russian). DOI: 10.21886/2308-6424-2017-5-4-39-46

12. Petov V.S., Bazarkin A.K., Krupinov E.S., Morozov A.O., Taratkin M.S., Abdusalamov A.F., Amosov A.V., Enikeev D.V. Retrospective analysis of prostate cancer detection using mpMR/US-fusion and cognitive biopsy. Urology Herald. 2022;10(4):88-97. (In Russian). DOI: 10.21886/2308-6424-2022-10-4-88-97

13. Wegelin O, Exterkate L, van der Leest M, Kummer JA, Vreuls W, de Bruin PC, Bosch JLHR, Barentsz JO, Somford DM, van Melick HHE. 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 Biopsies. Eur Urol. 2019;75(4):582-590. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.040

14. Ploussard G, Barret E, Fiard G, Lenfant L, Malavaud B, Giannarini G, Almeras C, Aziza R, Renard-Penna R, Descotes JL, Rozet F, Beauval JB, Salin A, Rouprêt M. Transperineal Versus Transrectal Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Biopsies for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Final Results of the Randomized PERFECT trial (CCAFU-PR1). Eur Urol Oncol. 2024;7(5):1080-1087. DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2024.01.019

15. Hu JC, Assel M, Allaf ME, Vickers AJ, Ehdaie B, Cohen AJ, Green DA, Ghazi A, Ristau BT, Kowalczyk KJ, George AK, Patel HD, Montgomery JS, Han M, Rezaee M, Pavlovich CP, Patel NA, Ross AE, Kundu SD, Wang GJ, Shoag JE, Singla N, Stensland K, Gorin MA, Schaeffer AJ, Schaeffer EM. Transperineal vs Transrectal Prostate Biopsy-The PREVENT Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2024;10(11):1590-1593. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2024.4000. Epub ahead of print.

16. Mian BM, Feustel PJ, Aziz A, Kaufman RP Jr, Bernstein A, Avulova S, Fisher HAG. Complications Following Transrectal and Transperineal Prostate Biopsy: Results of the ProBE-PC Randomized Clinical Trial. J Urol. 2024;211(2):205-213. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000003788

17. Bryant RJ, Marian IR, Williams R, Lopez JF, Mercader C, Raslan M, Berridge C, Whitburn J, Campbell T, Tuck S, Barber VS, Scaife J, Hewitt A, Taylor A, Ooms A, Landeiro F, Little M, Wolstenholme J, Ghosh S, Reynard JM, Hamdy FC, Liew MPC, Leslie TA, Catto JWF, Rosario DJ, Omer A, Good DW, Gray RH, Kommu S, Chung D, Wells H, Narahari K, Macpherson RE, Verrill C, Eddy B, Yamamoto H, Lamb AD; TRANSLATE Trial Study Group. Local anaesthetic transperineal biopsy versus transrectal prostate biopsy in prostate cancer detection (TRANSLATE): a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2025;26(5):583-595. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(25)00100-7

18. Mazzone E, Stabile A, Pellegrino F, Basile G, Cignoli D, Cirulli GO, Sorce G, Barletta F, Scuderi S, Bravi CA, Cucchiara V, Fossati N, Gandaglia G, Montorsi F, Briganti A. Positive Predictive Value of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis. Eur Urol Oncol. 2021;4(5):697-713. DOI: 10.1016/j.euo.2020.12.004

19. Oerther B, Engel H, Bamberg F, Sigle A, Gratzke C, Benndorf M. Cancer detection rates of the PI-RADSv2.1 assessment categories: systematic review and meta-analysis on lesion level and patient level. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2022;25(2):256-263. DOI: 10.1038/s41391-021-00417-1

20. Clinical guidelines “Prostate Cancer” (approved by the Ministry of Health of Russia). (In Russian). Accessed August 10, 2025. URL: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_377887/