ABSTRACT BACKGROUND The combination of MRI-guided targeted biopsy (MRGB) with systematic biopsy (SB) provides the highest accuracy in detecting prostate cancer. There is a controversy over

the superiority of fusion targeted biopsy (fus-MRGB) over cognitive targeted biopsy (cog-MRGB). The present head-to-head randomized controlled trial was performed to compare diagnostic yield

of fus-MRGB in combination with SB with cog-MRGB in combination with SB. METHODS Biopsy-naive patients with a prostate-specific antigen level between 2 and 10 ng/dL who were candidates for

prostate biopsy were included in the study. Multiparametric MRI was performed on all patients and patients with suspicious lesions with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score of 3

used to compare detection rates yielded by SB and targeted biopsy in each study group. RESULTS One-hundred men in the cog-MRGB group and 99 men in the fus-MRGB group were compared. The

baseline characteristics of patients including age, PSA level, prostate volume, PSA density, and clinical stage were similar in the two groups (_p_ > 0.05). Both the overall and

clinically significant prostate cancer detection rates in the fus-MRGB group (44.4% and 33.3%, respectively) were significantly higher than cog-MRGB group (31.0% and 19.0%, respectively)

(_p_ = 0.035 and _p_ = 0.016, respectively). CONCLUSION The accuracy of identifying overall and clinically significant prostate cancer by fus-MRGB in biopsy-naive patients with PSA levels

between 2 and 10 ng/dL is significantly higher than cog-MRGB and if available, we recommend using fus-MRGB over cog-MRGB in these patients. Access through your institution Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution ACCESS OPTIONS Access through your institution Subscribe to this journal Receive 4 print issues and online access

$259.00 per year only $64.75 per issue Learn more Buy this article * Purchase on SpringerLink * Instant access to full article PDF Buy now Prices may be subject to local taxes which are

calculated during checkout ADDITIONAL ACCESS OPTIONS: * Log in * Learn about institutional subscriptions * Read our FAQs * Contact customer support SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS

LESION SIZE MAY AFFECT DIAGNOSTIC CAPABILITIES OF MRI-GUIDED ULTRASOUND FUSION BIOPSY AND COGNITIVE TARGETED BIOPSY FOR CLINICALLY SIGNIFICANT PROSTATE CANCER Article Open access 30 August

2024 DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING TARGETED BIOPSY TECHNIQUES COMPARED TO TRANSRECTAL ULTRASOUND GUIDED BIOPSY OF THE PROSTATE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Article Open access 21 September 2021 CAN FEWER TRANSPERINEAL SYSTEMATIC BIOPSY CORES HAVE THE SAME PROSTATE CANCER DETECTION RATE AS OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING/ULTRASOUND FUSION BIOPSY?

Article 27 July 2020 REFERENCES * Wegelin O, Exterkate L, Somford D, Barentsz J, Van Der M, Kummer A. et al. The FUTURE trial: a multicenter RCT on three techniques of MRI targeted prostate

biopsy. Eur Urol Suppl. 2018;17:e699–700. Article  Google Scholar  * Exterkate L, Wegelin O, Van Melick H, Barentsz J, Van Der Leest M, Kummer A, et al. The FUTURE trial: a RCT on MRI

targeted prostate biopsy. Comparison of targeted and systematic biopsy outcomes. Eur Urol Suppl. 2018;17:e896–7. Article  Google Scholar  * Rastinehad AR, Turkbey B, Salami SS, Yaskiv O,

George AK, Fakhoury M, et al. Improving detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy. J Urol.

2014;191:1749–54. Article  Google Scholar  * Moore CM, Robertson NL, Arsanious N, Middleton T, Villers A, Klotz L, et al. Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance

imaging–derived targets: a systematic review. Eur Urol. 2013;63:125–40. Article  Google Scholar  * Delongchamps NB, Peyromaure M, Schull A, Beuvon F, Bouazza N, Flam T, et al. Prebiopsy

magnetic resonance imaging and prostate cancer detection: comparison of random and targeted biopsies. J Urol. 2013;189:493–9. Article  Google Scholar  * Wu L-M, Xu J-R, Gu H-Y, Hua J, Chen

J, Zhang W, et al. Usefulness of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Academic Radiol. 2012;19:1215–24. Article  Google Scholar  * Pinto PA,

Chung PH, Rastinehad AR, Baccala AA, Kruecker J, Benjamin CJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal

ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol. 2011;186:1281–5. Article  Google Scholar  * Venderink W, Bomers JG, Overduin CG, Padhani AR, de Lauw

GR, Sedelaar MJ, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: what urologists need to know. Part 3: targeted biopsy. Eur

Urol. 2020;77:481–90. Article  Google Scholar  * Ahdoot M, Wilbur AR, Reese SE, Lebastchi AH, Mehralivand S, Gomella PT, et al. MRI-targeted, systematic, and combined biopsy for prostate

cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:917–28. Article  Google Scholar  * Chennamsetty A, Kardos S, Chu W, Emtage J, Ruel N, Gellhaus P, et al. Utility of multi-parametric mri/ultrasound

fusion: cognitive not inferior to targeted software-based prostate biopsies: Mp03-16. J Urol. 2017;197:e26. Google Scholar  * Haffner J, Lemaitre L, Puech P, Haber GP, Leroy X, Jones JS, et

al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging‐targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection. BJU Int.

2011;108:E171–8. Article  Google Scholar  * Wegelin O, van Melick HH, Hooft L, Bosch JR, Reitsma HB, Barentsz JO, et al. Comparing three different techniques for magnetic resonance

imaging-targeted prostate biopsies: a systematic review of in-bore versus magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion versus cognitive registration. Is there a preferred

technique? Eur Urol. 2017;71:517–31. Article  Google Scholar  * Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MM. Magnetic resonance imaging–targeted biopsy may enhance

the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2015;68:438–50.

Article  Google Scholar  * Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, Stifelman MD, Lepor H, Deng F-M, et al. A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging–ultrasound fusion

and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial. Eur Urol. 2014;66:343–51. Article  Google Scholar  * Puech P, Rouvière O, Renard-Penna R, Villers

A, Devos P, Colombel M. Multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US–MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy—prospective multicenter study. Radiology.

2013;268:461–9. Article  Google Scholar  * Oderda M, Faletti R, Battisti G, Dalmasso E, Falcone M, Marra G, et al. Prostate cancer detection rate with Koelis fusion biopsies versus cognitive

biopsies: a comparative study. Urol Int. 2016;97:230–7. Article  Google Scholar  * Puech P, Rouvière O, Renard-Penna R, Villers A, Devos P, Colombel M, et al. Prostate cancer diagnosis:

multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US–MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy—prospective multicenter study. Radiology. 2013;268:461–9. Article  Google

Scholar  * Valerio M, McCartan N, Freeman A, Punwani S, Emberton M, Ahmed HU. Visually directed vs. software-based targeted biopsy compared to transperineal template mapping biopsy in the

detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. 2015;33:424.e9–16. Article  Google Scholar  * Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, et al.

PI-RADS prostate imaging–reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69:16–40. Article  Google Scholar  * Singh AK, Krieger A, Lattouf JB, Guion P, Grubb RL, Albert PS, et al.

Patient selection determines the prostate cancer yield of dynamic contrast‐enhanced magnetic resonance imaging‐guided transrectal biopsies in a closed 3‐Tesla scanner. BJU Int.

2008;101:181–5. Article  Google Scholar  * Hamid S, Donaldson IA, Hu Y, Rodell R, Villarini B, Bonmati E, et al. The SmartTarget biopsy trial: a prospective, within-person randomised,

blinded trial comparing the accuracy of visual-registration and magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound image-fusion targeted biopsies for prostate cancer risk stratification. Eur Urol.

2019;75:733–40. Article  Google Scholar  Download references AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Department of Urology, Al-Zahra Hospital, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences,

Isfahan, Iran Mohammad-Hossein Izadpanahi, Mohammad-Hatef Khorrami, Mahtab Zargham, Mehrdad Mohammadi Sichani & Farshid Alizadeh * Department of Urology, Iran University of Medical

Sciences, Tehran, Iran Amirreza Elahian * Isfahan Kidney Diseases Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran Farshad Gholipour * Department of Human Biology,

University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada Farbod Khorrami Authors * Mohammad-Hossein Izadpanahi View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar *

Amirreza Elahian View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Farshad Gholipour View author publications You can also search for this author

inPubMed Google Scholar * Mohammad-Hatef Khorrami View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Mahtab Zargham View author publications You can also

search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Mehrdad Mohammadi Sichani View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Farshid Alizadeh View author

publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Farbod Khorrami View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CORRESPONDING

AUTHOR Correspondence to Farshad Gholipour. ETHICS DECLARATIONS CONFLICT OF INTEREST The authors declare no competing interests. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PUBLISHER’S NOTE Springer Nature

remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE

Izadpanahi, MH., Elahian, A., Gholipour, F. _et al._ Diagnostic yield of fusion magnetic resonance-guided prostate biopsy versus cognitive-guided biopsy in biopsy-naive patients: a

head-to-head randomized controlled trial. _Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis_ 24, 1103–1109 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-021-00366-9 Download citation * Received: 11 October 2020 *

Revised: 25 February 2021 * Accepted: 26 March 2021 * Published: 27 April 2021 * Issue Date: December 2021 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-021-00366-9 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you

share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the

Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative