Transition Prostate Imaging and Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 5 is easily detected owing to typical magnetic resonance imaging features. However, it is unclear as to how transition PI-RADS 5 appears on transrectal ultrasound (TRUS).
Purpose
To assess TRUS features of transition PI-RADS 5 and outcomes of TRUS-guided target biopsy.
Material and Methods
Between March 2014 and November 2018, 186 male patients underwent TRUS-guided biopsy of PI-RADS 5. Of them, 82 and 104were transition and peripheral PI-RADS 5, respectively. Transition and peripheral PI-RADS 5 were compared according to echogenicity (hyperechoic or hypoechoic) and hypoechoic rim (present or absent). Each tumor was targeted with TRUS based on TRUS features. Significant (Gleason score ≥7) and insignificant (Gleason score 6) cancer detection rates (CDRs) were compared between transition and peripheral PI-RADS 5. Standard reference was biopsy examination. Fisher’s exact test was used for statistical analysis.
Results
Transition PI-RADS 5 was hyperechoic in 89.0% (73/82) and had a hypoechoic rim in 97.6% (80/82), whereas peripheral PI-RADS 5 was hypoechoic in 99.0% (103/104) and had a hypoechoic rim in 26.9% (28/104) (both, P<0.0001). The significant CDRs of transition and peripheral PI-RADS 5 were 56.1% (46/82) and 65.4% (68/104), respectively (P=0.2263). However, the insignificant CDRs of these categories were 22.0% (18/82) and 8.7% (9/104), respectively (P=0.0123).
Conclusion
Transition PI-RADS 5 tends to have hyperechoic echogenicity and a hypoechoic rim. These findings help to target the transition PI-RADS 5 using TRUS. However, transition PI-RADS 5 is confirmed more frequently as insignificant cancer than peripheral PI-RADS 5.
WeinrebJCBarentszJOChoykePL, et al.
PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol2016;
69:16–40.
2.
TurkbeyBRosenkrantzABHaiderMA, et al.
Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur Urol2019;76:340–351.
3.
PuryskoASRosenkrantzABBarentszJO, et al.
PI-RADS Version 2: A Pictorial Update. Radiographics2016;
36:1354–1372.
4.
GreerMDShihJHLayN, et al.
Validation of the dominant sequence paradigm and role of dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging in PI-RADS Version 2. Radiology2017;
285:859–869.
5.
HofbauerSLMaxeinerAKittnerB, et al.
Validation of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for the detection of prostate cancer. J Urol2018;200:767–773.
6.
MehralivandSBednarovaSShihJH, et al.
Prospective evaluation of PI-RADS Version 2 using the International Society of Urological Pathology Prostate Cancer Grade Group System. J Urol2017;
198:583–590.
7.
ParkSYJungDCOhYT, et al.
Prostate cancer: PI-RADS Version 2 helps preoperatively predict clinically significant cancers. Radiology2016;
280:108–116.
8.
TanNLinWCKhoshnoodiP, et al.
In-bore 3-T MR-guided transrectal targeted prostate biopsy: Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2-based diagnostic performance for detection of prostate cancer. Radiology2017;
283:130–139.
9.
ThaiJNNarayananHAGeorgeAK, et al.
Validation of PI-RADS Version 2 in transition zone lesions for the detection of prostate cancer. Radiology2018;
288:485–491.
10.
ParkBK.
Ultrasound-guided genitourinary interventions: principles and techniques. Ultrasonography2017;
36:336–348.
AnT, ParkBK.
Value of systematic biopsy added to target biopsy for detecting significant cancer in men with Prostate Imaging and Reporting and Data System 5. Precis Future Med2020;
4:107–113.
13.
AnT, ParkBK.
Validation of new TRUS biopsy techniques for PI-RADS 4 or 5. Precis Future Med2020;
4:141–148.
14.
SaloJORannikkoSMakinenJ, et al.
Echogenic structure of prostatic cancer imaged on radical prostatectomy specimens. Prostate1987;
10:1–9.
15.
EgawaSWheelerTMGreeneDR, et al.
Unusual hyperechoic appearance of prostate cancer on transrectal ultrasonography. Br J Urol1992;
69:169–174.
16.
SpajicBEupicHTomasD, et al.
The incidence of hyperechoic prostate cancer in transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy specimens. Urology2007;
70:734–737.
17.
ParkBKLeeHMKimCK, et al.
Lesion localization in patients with a previous negative transrectal ultrasound biopsy and persistently elevated prostate specific antigen level using diffusion-weighted imaging at three Tesla before rebiopsy. Invest Radiol2008;43:789–793.
18.
BrattOHolmbergEAndrenO, et al.
The value of an extensive transrectal repeat biopsy with anterior sampling in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: a comparison from the randomised Study of Active Monitoring in Sweden (SAMS). Eur Urol2019;76:461–466.
19.
KomaiYNumaoNYoshidaS, et al.
High diagnostic ability of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect anterior prostate cancer missed by transrectal 12-core biopsy. J Urol2013;
190:867–873.
20.
RadhakrishnanSDorkinTJSheikhN, et al.
Role of transition zone sampling by TURP in patients with raised PSA and multiple negative transrectal ultrasound-guided prostatic biopsies. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis2004;
7:338–342.
21.
PuppoPIntroiniCCalviP, et al.
Role of transurethral resection of the prostate and biopsy of the peripheral zone in the same session after repeated negative biopsies in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Eur Urol2006;
49:873–878.
22.
KitamuraHMasumoriNTanumaY, et al.
Does transurethral resection of the prostate facilitate detection of clinically significant prostate cancer that is missed with systematic sextant and transition zone biopsies?Int J Urol2002;
9:95–99.
23.
PelzerAEBekticJBergerAP, et al.
Are transition zone biopsies still necessary to improve prostate cancer detection? Results from the tyrol screening project. Eur Urol2005;
48:916–921; discussion 921.
24.
SomfordDMVreulsWJansenTS, et al.
Incremental value of transition zone and midline apical biopsy at baseline TRUS-guided biopsy for prostate cancer detection. World J Urol2014;
32:461–467.
25.
OnderAUYalcinVArarO, et al.
Impact of transition zone biopsies in detection and evaluation of prostate cancer. Eur Urol1998;
33:542–548.
26.
ShannonBAMcNealJECohenRJ.Transition zone carcinoma of the prostate gland: a common indolent tumour type that occasionally manifests aggressive behaviour. Pathology2003;
35:467–471.
27.
SakaiIHaradaKKurahashiT, et al.
Analysis of differences in clinicopathological features between prostate cancers located in the transition and peripheral zones. Int J Urol2006;
13:368–372.
28.
LeeJJThomasICNolleyR, et al.
Biologic differences between peripheral and transition zone prostate cancer. Prostate2015;
75:183–190.
29.
DjavanBSusaniMBursaB, et al.
Predictability and significance of multifocal prostate cancer in the radical prostatectomy specimen. Tech Urol1999;
5:139–142.
WiseAMStameyTAMcNealJE, et al.
Morphologic and clinical significance of multifocal prostate cancers in radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology2002;
60:264–269.
32.
CashHMaxeinerAStephanC, et al.
The detection of significant prostate cancer is correlated with the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) in MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy. World J Urol2016;
34:525–532.
33.
KasivisvanathanVRannikkoASBorghiM, et al.
MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med2018;
378:1767–1777.
34.
VenderinkWvan der LeestMvan LuijtelaarA, et al.
Retrospective comparison of direct in-bore magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy and fusion-guided biopsy in patients with MRI lesions which are likely or highly likely to be clinically significant prostate cancer. World J Urol2017;
35:1849–1855.
35.
LuAJSyedJSGhabiliK, et al.
Role of core number and location in targeted magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy. Eur Urol2019;76:14–17.
36.
GilbertSMCavalloCBKahaneH, et al.
Evidence suggesting PSA cutpoint of 2.5 ng/mL for prompting prostate biopsy: review of 36,316 biopsies. Urology2005;
65:549–553.
37.
YangWJLeeDHChungBH, et al.
Detection rate of prostate cancer on biopsy according to serum prostate-specific antigen in Korean men: a multicenter study. Urology2006;
67:333–336.
38.
ParkHKHongSKByunSS, et al.
T1c prostate cancer detection rate and pathologic characteristics: comparison between patients with serum prostate-specific antigen range of 3.0 to 4.0 ng/mL and 4.1 to 10.0 ng/mL in Korean population. Urology2006;
68:85–88.
39.
SaitoS.Prostate-specific antigen cut-off point of 2.5 ng/mL and increasing the number of prostate biopsies results in the detection of curable prostate cancer even in Japanese population. Int J Urol2007;
14:709–712.
40.
KannoTShibasakiNTsujiY, et al. [
Prostate cancer detection by prostate biopsy among Japanese with prostate-specific antigen below 4.0 ng/ml]. Hinyokika Kiyo2006;
52:181–184.
