Objectives 

To compare the performance of micro-ultrasound (mUS) with multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer. 

Materials and Methods

 Retrospective data from consecutive patients with any indication for prostate biopsy in 2 academic institutions were included. The operator, blinded to mpMRI, would first scan the prostate and annotate any mUS lesions. All mUS lesions were biopsied. Any mpMRI lesions that did not correspond to mUS lesion upon unblinding were additionally biopsied. Grade group (GG) ≥ 2 was considered clinically significant cancer. The Jeffreys interval method was used to compare performance of mUS with mpMRI with the non-inferiority limit set at −5%. 

Results

 Imaging and biopsy were performed in 82 patients with 153 lesions. mUS had similar sensitivity to mpMRI (per-lesion analysis: 78.4% versus 72.5%), but lower specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under the curve. Micro-ultrasound found GG ≥ 2 in 13% of cases missed by mpMRI, while mpMRI found GG ≥ 2 in 11% of cases missed by mUS. The difference 0.020 (95% CI −0.070 to 0.110) was not statistically significant (P = 0.33). 

Conclusion 

The sensitivity of mUS in detecting GG ≥ 2 disease was similar to that of mpMRI, but the specificity was lower. Further evaluation with a larger sample size and experienced operators is warranted.

1. Rohrbach, D., Wodlinger, B., Wen, J., Mamou, J., & Feleppa, E. (2018). High-frequency quantitative ultrasound for imaging prostate cancer using a novel micro-ultrasound scanner. Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology, 44(6), 1341–1354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2018.02.014
2. Ahmed, H. U., El-Shater Bosaily, A., Brown, L. C., Gabe, R., Kaplan, R., Parmar, M. K., ... PROMIS Study Group. (2017). Diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): A paired validating confirmatory study. The Lancet, 389(10071), 815–822. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
3. Turkbey, B., Brown, A. M., Sankineni, S., Wood, B. J., Pinto, P. A., & Choyke, P. L. (2016). Multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of prostate cancer. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 66(4), 326–336. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21333
4. Mowatt, G., Scotland, G., Boachie, C., Cruickshank, M., Ford, J. A., Fraser, C., ... Lourenco, T. (2013). The diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance spectroscopy and enhanced magnetic resonance imaging techniques in aiding the localisation of prostate abnormalities for biopsy: A systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technology Assessment, 17(20), 1–281. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta17200
5. Turkbey, B., & Choyke, P. L. (2015). PI-RADS v2.0: What is new? Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, 21(5), 382–384. https://doi.org/10.5152/dir.2015.15121
6. Mottet, N., van den Bergh, R. C. N., Briers, E., De Santis, M., Gillessen, S., Grummet, J., ... Cornford, P. (2019). EAU – EANM – ESTRO – ESUR – SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. European Association of Urology. https://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/EAU-EANM-ESUR-ESTRO-SIOG-Guidelines-on-Prostate-Cancer-2019.pdf
7. Schaeffer, E., Srinivas, S., Antonarakis, E. S., Armstrong, A. J., Bekelman, J. E., Cheng, H., ... National Comprehensive Cancer Network. (2020). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Prostate cancer V2.2020. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate_detection.pdf
8. Kasivisvanathan, V., Rannikko, A. S., Borghi, M., Panebianco, V., Mynderse, L. A., Vaarala, M. H., ... PRECISION Study Group Collaborators. (2018). MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. New England Journal of Medicine, 378(19), 1767–1777. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801998
9. Ghai, S., Eure, G., Fradet, V., Hyndman, M. E., McGrath, T., Wodlinger, B., ... Fenster, A. (2016). Assessing cancer risk on novel 29 MHz micro-ultrasound images of the prostate: Creation of the micro-ultrasound protocol for prostate risk identification. The Journal of Urology, 196(2), 562–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.093
10. Eure, G., Fanney, D., Lin, J., Wodlinger, B., & Ghai, S. (2019). Comparison of conventional transrectal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and micro-ultrasound for visualizing prostate cancer in an active surveillance population: A feasibility study. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 13(3), E70–E77. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.5459
11. Lughezzani, G., Saita, A., Lazzeri, M., Paciotti, M., Maffei, D., Lista, G., ... Guazzoni, G. (2019). Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of micro-ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion targeted biopsies for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. European Urology Oncology, 2(3), 329–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2018.10.010
12. Claros, O. R., Tourinho-Barbosa, R. R., Fregeville, A., Gallardo, A. C., Muttin, F., Carneiro, A., ... Cathelineau, X. (2020). Comparison of initial experience with transrectal magnetic resonance imaging cognitive guided micro-ultrasound biopsies versus established transperineal robotic ultrasound magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsies for prostate cancer. The Journal of Urology, 203(5), 918–925. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000677
13. Rodríguez Socarrás, M. E., Gomez Rivas, J., Cuadros Rivera, V., Reinoso Elbers, J., Llanes González, L., Michel Mercado, I., ... Fernandez-Conejero, G. (2020). Prostate mapping for cancer diagnosis: The Madrid protocol. Transperineal prostate biopsies using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging fusion and micro-ultrasound guided biopsies. The Journal of Urology, 204(4), 726–733. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001053
14. Cornud, F., Lefevre, A., Flam, T., Dumonceau, O., Galiano, M., Soyer, P., ... Peyromaure, M. (2020). MRI-directed high-frequency (29 MHz) TRUS-guided biopsies: Initial results of a single-center study. European Radiology, 30(9), 4838–4846. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06834-3 (Note: duplicate entry merged)
15. van der Leest, M., Cornel, E., Israël, B., Hendriks, R., Padhani, A. R., Hoogenboom, M., ... Mulders, P. (2019). Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: A large prospective multicenter clinical study. European Urology, 75(4), 570–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.023
16. Wiemer, L., Hollenbach, M., Heckmann, R., Kittner, B., Plage, H., Reimann, M., ... Franiel, T. (2021). Evolution of targeted prostate biopsy by adding micro-ultrasound to the magnetic resonance imaging pathway. European Urology Focus, 7(6), 1292–1299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2020.06.022
17. Engelbrecht, M. R., Jager, G. J., Laheij, R. J., Verbeek, A. L. M., van Lier, H. J., Barentsz, J. O., ... Leszczynski, G. (2002). Local staging of prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging: A meta-analysis. European Radiology, 12(9), 2294–2302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-002-1322-x
18. Mullerad, M., Hricak, H., Kuroiwa, K., Pucar, D., Chen, H. N., Kattan, M. W., ... Scardino, P. T. (2005). Comparison of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging, guided prostate biopsy and digital rectal examination in the preoperative anatomical localization of prostate cancer. The Journal of Urology, 174(6), 2158–2163. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000181156.40250.77