Site Overlay

Histopathological results after MRТ/US fusion guided biopsy of prostate lesions classified asPIRADS 3

Volume 11, Issue 1

Original Article / Published: November 2023


V. Todorova, O. Gatsev, P. Petrov, K. Hristov, K. Petkova, I. Saltirov

Clinic of Urology, Military Medical Academy, Sofia, Bulgaria


Introduction: Мagnetic resonance tomography (MRT) has become an established part of prostate cancer diagnosis. MRT/US fusion guided biopsy enables obtaining tissue samples directly from lesions suspected for prostate cancer. The introduction of the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) precises the cases in which performance of target biopsy is needed by categorization of suspected prostate lesions according to the probability of detecting prostate cancer. It is debatable whether PI-RADS 3 lesions in MRТ (MRТ) represent a significant risk for prostate cancer.

Objectivе: The objective of this study is to assess the incidence of carcinoma-positive histological results in PIRADS 3 compliant lesions from MRТ.

Material and methods: Medical records of 99 patients, who underwent transperineal MRТ/US fusion prostate biopsy of suspicious lesions on MRТ, classified as PI-RADS 3, between January 2019 and December 2022 were retrospectively analyzed.

Results: Patients` mean age was 65.6±6.8 years. Mean volume of the prostate gland was 54.2±20.2 cc and the mean value of prostate-specific antigen was 18.5±6.3. Pathologic finding from digital rectal examination of the prostate gland appeared in 18 (18.2%) patients. Mean size of the lesion from MRI was 12.9±5.24 mm. The suspect lesions were localized mainly in the peripheral zone of the prostate gland – 60 (60.6%), secondly in the transitional zone – 35 (35.4%). Seminal vesicles invasion and lymphade-nomegaly were rare – 1 (1%) and 2 (2%) cases. Histopathological results in 63 (63.6%) patients was benign prostatic hyperplasia. 24 (24.2%) lesions were classified as 3+3=6 according to Gleason Score, 4 (4.0%) as 3+4=7 and 8 (8.1%) as 4+3=7.

Conclusion: The results of this retrospective study shows that PI-RADS 3 lesions take an intermediate position in regard to histopathological findings. The resulting almost equal number of patients diagnosed with BPH and prostate cancer is proof of this. PI-RADS 3 lesions carry a relatively small risk of clinically significant cancer (csPCa).



prostate cancer, biopsy fusion, multiparametric magneticresonance tomography, PI-RADS

How to cite this article:

V. Todorova, O. Gatsev, P. Petrov, K. Hristov, K. Petkova, I. Saltirov. Histopathological results after MRI/US fusion guided biopsy of prostate lesions classified as PIRADS 3. Journal of Endourology and Minimally Invasive Surgery (Bulgaria), 2023; 11(1): 35-42

Corresponding author:

Dr. Viktoria Todorova
Military Medical Academy of Sofia, Department of Urology and Nephrology, Clinic of Urology, 3 “Georgi Sofiiski” blvd., Sofia 1606

  1. Giona S. The Epidemiology for Prostate Cancer. Exon Publications; Brisbane, Australia: 2021. pp. 1–15.
  2. Bray F., Ferlay J., Soerjomataram I., Siegel R.L., Torre L.A., Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries.
    CA Cancer J. Clin. 2018;68:394–424. doi: 10.3322/ caac.21492.
  3. Rawla P. Epidemiology of prostate cancer. World J. Oncol.2019;10:63. doi: 10.14740/wjon1191
  4. Wade C.A., Kyprianou N. Profiling prostate cancer thera-peutic resistance. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018;19:904. doi: 10.3390/ijms19030904.
  5. Heidegger I. PSA screening—A matter of debate? MemoMag. Eur. Med. Oncol. 2019;12:244–248. doi: 10.1007/s12254-019-00524-9.
  6. Irish Cancer Society Cancer Statistics: Irish Cancer Society2020. [(accessed on 1 April 2022)]
  7. Wade C.A., Kyprianou N. Profiling prostate cancer therapeutic resistance. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018;19:904. doi: 10.3390/ijms19030904.
  8. Giganti F, Rosenkrantz AB, Villeirs G, et al. The evolution of MRI of the prostate: The past, the present, and the future. AJR AmJ Roentgenol 2019; 213: 384-396.
  9. Padhani AR, Barentsz J, Villeirs G, et al. PI-RADS steering committee: The PI-RADS multiparametric MRI and MRI-directed biopsy pathway. Radiology 2019; 292: 464-474.
  10. Oliveira T, Amaral Ferreira L, Marto CM, Marques C, Oliveira C, Donato P. The Role of Multiparametric MRI in the Local Staging of Prostate Cancer. Front Biosci (Elite Ed). 2023 Sep
    20;15(3):21. doi: 10.31083/j.fbe1503021. PMID:37743235.
  11. Agrotis, Georgios & Loenhout, Rhiannon & Zijta, Frank & Smithuis, Robin & Schoots, Ivo. (2023). The Radiolo-gy Assistant -Prostate Cancer PI-RADS v2.1. 10.13140/ RG.2.2.29543.83363.
  12. Barentsz J, Richenberg J, Clements R et al, European Society of Urogenital Radiology, ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012, Eur Radiol. 2012 Apr;22(4):746-57.
  13. Kang Z, Margolis DJ, Wang S, Li Q, Song J, Wang L. Management Strategy for Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 3 Lesions. Curr Urol Rep. 2023 Nov 8. doi:
    10.1007/s11934-023-01187-0. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 37936016.
  14. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): A paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet
    2017; 389: 815-822
  15. van Leenders G, van der Kwast TH, Grignon DJ, et al. The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on grading of prostatic carcinoma. Am J Surg
    Pathol 2020; 44: e87-e99..
  16. Kasel-Seibert M, Lehmann T, Aschenbach R, et al. Assessment of PI-RADS v2 for the Detection of Prostate Cancer. Eur J Radi- ol 2016;85:726-31
  17. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 2016;69:16-40
  18. Grey AD, Chana MS, Popert R, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) scoring in a transperineal prostate biopsy setting. BJU Int 2015;115:728-35.
  19. Wysock JS, Mendhiratta N, Zattoni F, et al. Predictive value of negative 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging ofthe prostate on 12-core biopsy results. BJU Int 2016;118:515-20
  20. Schlenker, B., Apfelbeck, M., Chaloupka, M., Stief, C. G., & Clevert, D.-A. (2018). Comparison of PIRADS 3 lesions with histo- pathological findings after MRI-fusion targeted biopsy of the
    prostate in a real world-setting. Clinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation, 1–6. doi:10.3233/ch-189407
  21. Wadera, A., Alabousi, M., Pozdnyakov, A., Kashif Al-Ghita, M., Jafri, A., McInnes, M. D., … Alabousi, A. (2020). Impact of PI-RADS 3 lesions on the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for detecting prostate cancer and the prevalence of prostate cancer within each PI-RADS category: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis. The British Journal of Radiology, 20191050.
  22. Liddell, Heatha; Jyoti, Rajeevb; Haxhimolla, Hodo Z.a, c. mp-MRI Prostate Characterised PIRADS 3 Lesions are Associated with a Low Risk of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer – A
    Retrospective Review of 92 Biopsied PIRADS 3 Lesions. Current Urology 8(2):p 96-100, July 2015. | DOI: 10.1159/000365697
  23. Yang, S., Zhao, W., Tan, S., Zhang, Y., Wei, C., Chen, T., & Shen, J. (2020). Combining clinical and MRI data to manage PI-RADS 3 lesions and reduce excessive biopsy. Translational Andrology
    And Urology, 9(3), 1252-1261. doi:10.21037/tau-19-755
  24. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, Cornud F, Haider MA, Macura KJ, Margolis D, Schnall MD, Shtern F, Tempany CM,Thoeny HC, Verma S. PI-RADS Prostate Imaging – Reporting and Data
    System: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):16- 40. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052. Epub 2015 Oct 1. PMID: 26427566; PMCID: PMC6467207
  25. Hermie, I., Van Besien, J., Decaestecker, K., De Visschere, P., Lumen, N., & Villeirs, G. (2019). Which clinical and radiological characteristics can predict clinically significant prostate cancer in PI-RADS 3 lesions? A retrospective study in a high-volume academic center. European Journal of Radiology. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.02.031
  26. Sheridan, A. D., Nath, S. K., Syed, J. S., Aneja, S., Sprenkle, P. C., Weinreb, J. C., & Spektor, M. (2018). Risk of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Associated With Prostate Imaging
    Reporting and Data System Category 3 (Equivocal) Lesions Identified on Multiparametric Prostate MRI. American Journal of Roentgenology, 210(2), 347–357. doi:10.2214/ajr.17.18516