Multidisciplinary Approach in MR-US Fusion Prostate Biopsy: Does Real-Time Radiologist Assistance Associate With Reduced Overdiagnosis and Improved Detection in ‘Challenging’ (PI-RADS 3–4) Lesions? (A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis)

Year 2026, Volume: 18 Issue: 1, 56 - 61, 24.03.2026

Mehmet Ali Özel , Dursun Baba , İbrahim Feyyaz Naldemir , Burak Mehmet Gürpınarlı , Burak Ayvacık

https://doi.org/10.18521/ktd.1838273

https://izlik.org/JA36WW82KW

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the impact of real-time radiologist assistance on the detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) and the reduction of overdiagnosis in patients with “challenging” lesions (PI-RADS 3 and 4), using a propensity score-matched analysis.
Material and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent software-based MR–US fusion biopsy for PI-RADS 3 or 4 lesions. PI-RADS 5 lesions were excluded to better assess operator-dependent targeting. Patients were stratified into two cohorts: the Multidisciplinary Group (MDG), with active real-time radiologist assistance, and the Single-Operator Group (SOG), performed by the urologist alone. To minimize selection bias, 1:3 propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted based on age, PSA level, prostate volume, and index lesion size.
Results: Following matching, 98 patients (28 MDG, 70 SOG) were included. Overall cancer detection rate (CDR) was numerically higher in the SOG (67.1% vs. 53.6%), largely driven by a numerically higher detection of insignificant (ISUP Grade Group 1) cancers (41.4% vs. 21.5%). Conversely, csPCa detection (ISUP ≥2) was higher in the MDG (32.1% vs. 25.7%). “First-strike success” (detection in the first core) was 88.9% in the MDG vs. 75.0% in the SOG. Subgroup analyses showed a strong clinical trend toward superior csPCa detection in the MDG for anterior lesions (60.0% vs. 23.3%, p=0.053).
Conclusion: In PI-RADS 3–4 lesions, the single-operator approach yields high sensitivity but may carry a risk of overdiagnosis. Real-time radiologist assistance appears to refine diagnostic yield by increasing csPCa detection while minimizing insignificant findings, particularly in challenging anatomical locations.

Keywords

Prostate Cancer , MRI-US fusion biopsy , PI-RADS , overdiagnosis , multiparametric MRI

Ethical Statement

Approval for the research was obtained from Düzce University Faculty of Medicine Ethics Committee on 08.12.2025 with decision number 2025-313. The study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the declaration of Helsinki.

Supporting Institution

The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

Thanks

The authors do not wish to acknowledge any individual or institution.

References

• 1. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(19):1767-77. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1801993.
• 2. Bjurlin MA, Carroll PR, Eggener S, Fulgham PF, Margolis DJ, Pinto PA, et al. Update of the standard operating procedure on the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis, staging and management of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2020;203(4):728-35. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000000617.
• 3. Mozer PC, Partin AW, Stoianovici D. (2009). Robotic image-guided needle interventions of the prostate. Rev Urol. 2009;11(1):7-15.
• 4. Cash H, Günzel K, Maxeiner A, Stephan C, Fischer T, Durmus T, et al. Prostate cancer detection on transrectal ultrasonography‐guided random biopsy despite negative real‐time magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasonography fusion‐guided targeted biopsy: reasons for targeted biopsy failure. BJU Int. 118(1):35-43. doi:10.1111/bju.13327.
• 5. Fütterer JJ, Briganti A, de Visschere P, Emberton M, Giannarini G, Kirkham A, et al. Can clinically significant prostate cancer be detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging? A systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 68(6), 1045-53. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.013.
• 6. Park KJ, Choi SH, Lee JS, Kim JK, Kim MH. Interreader agreement with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 for prostate cancer detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2020;204(4):661-70. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000001200.
• 7. Sonn GA, Fan RE, Ghanouni P, Wang NN, Brooks JD, Loening AM, et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging interpretation varies substantially across radiologists. Eur Urol Focus. 2019;5(4):592-9. doi:10.1016/j.euf.2017.11.010.
• 8. Loeb S, Bjurlin MA, Nicholson J, Tammela TL, Penson DF, Carter HB, et al. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2014;65(6):1046-1055. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.12.062.
• 9. Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, Hooft L, Bosch JLHR, 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(4):517-31. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2016.07.041.
• 10. Khoo C, Eldred-Evans D, Peters M, Hosking-Jervis F, Connor M, Reddy D, et al. MP56-02 man vs. machine: comparative effectiveness of cognitive targeted and image-fusion targeted transperineal prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2020;203(Suppl 4): e847-8. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000000925.02.
• 11. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, Padhani AR, Villeirs G, Macura KJ, et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur Urol. 2019;76(3):340-51. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033.
• 12. Stabile A, Giganti F, Rosenkrantz AB, Taneja SS, Villeirs G, Gill IS, et al. Multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis: current status and future directions. Nat Rev Urol. 2020;17(1):41-61. doi:10.1038/s41585-019-0212-4.
• 13. 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(10):917-28. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1910038.
• 14. Elwenspoek MMC, Sheppard AL, McInnes MDF, Merriel SWD, Rowe EWJ, Bryant RJ, et al. Comparison of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy with systematic biopsy alone for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(8):e198427. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.8427.
• 15. Collins SD, Peek N, Riley RD, Martin GP. Sample sizes of prediction model studies in prostate cancer were rarely justified and often insufficient. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;133:53-60. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.12.011.
• 16. Önder Ö, Ayva M, Yaraşır Y, Gürler V, Yazıcı MS, Akdoğan B, et al. Long-term follow-up results of multiparametric prostate MRI and the prognostic value of PI-RADS: a single-center retrospective cohort study. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2024;30(3):139-51. doi:10.4274/dir.2023.232414.
• 17. Rosenkrantz AB, Ayoola A, Hoffman D, Khasgiwala A, Prabhu V, Smereka P, et al. The learning curve in prostate MRI interpretation: self-directed learning versus continual reader feedback. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(3):W92-100. doi:10.2214/AJR.16.16876.
• 18. Filson CP, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, Huang J, Lieu P, Dorey FJ, et al. Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: the role of systematic and targeted biopsies. Cancer. 2016;122(6):884-92. doi:10.1002/cncr.29874.
• 19. Hansen NL, Barrett T, Kesch C, Pepdjonovic L, Bonekamp D, O'Sullivan R, et al. Multicentre evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging supported transperineal prostate biopsy in biopsy-naïve men with suspicion of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2018;122(1):40-9. doi:10.1111/bju.14049.