There have been several studies, all with inconsistent results. It depends where you look. My guess is that in the hands of Jelle Berentz, the results are superior. That's why I always mention the importance of a great radiologist to interpret the findings.
You can see the lack of benefit in some of the studies:
"Magnetic resonance imaging guided in-bore and systematic transrectal ultrasound guided biopsies achieved equally high detection rates in biopsy naïve patients with increased prostate specific antigen."Prospective Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guided In-bore Prostate Biopsy versus Systematic Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Prostate Biopsy in Biopsy Naïve Men with Elevated Prostate Specific Antigen
"MP-MRI/TRUS-fusion targeted biopsy did not improve PCa detection rate compared with TRUS-guided biopsy alone in patients with suspected PCa based on PSA values."Prebiopsy Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis in Biopsy-naive Men with Suspected Prostate Cancer Based on Elevated Prostate-specific Antigen Values: Results from a Randomized Prospective Blinded Controlled Trial
"In the first set of transrectal prostate biopsies, mp-MRI guidance did not increase the diagnostic yield significantly."Multiparametric MRI guidance in first-time prostate biopsies: what is the real benefit?
As you see, results are inconsistent. I guess that's partly because of the experience of the radiologist.
The other key things we notice about
all of these studies are that:
• All of these studies are from outside of the US
• Cancer is detected in about
half to two-thirds of the cases, in both TRUS and MRI-targeted.
In the US, cancer is only detected in about
one-third of cases. Because of the lack of PSA screening in Europe and elsewhere, and perhaps better biopsy protocols, PC is detected there more often on biopsy. Also, over-biopsying is rampant in the US. Because of this, MRI-targeting on a first biopsy in the US is expected to give a lower return here - most men will be negative. MRI-targeting in Europe also costs a good deal less. MRI increases the cost increase tremendously. Less diagnostic yield for a vastly increased cost doesn't sound like a good idea to me or any of the major cancer care centers in the US. I'd save it for when it's really needed.