Top

World Journal of Urology

Published in:

01-04-2014 | Original Article

Prostate biopsy: results and advantages of the transperineal approach—twenty-year experience of a single center

Authors: Pietro Pepe, Francesco Aragona

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 2/2014

Abstract

Purpose

Detection rate for prostate cancer (PCa) and complications following transperineal prostate biopsy (TPBx) were reported.

Methods

From January 1991 to December 2012, 4,000 men underwent TPBx; from 1991 to 2001, the patients underwent biopsy for suspicious DRE or PSA values >4 ng/mL; moreover, from 2002, the indications were abnormal DRE, PSA >10 ng/mL, PSA values between 4.1 and 10, 2.6 and 4 and <2.5 ng/mL with F/T PSA <25, <20 <15 %, respectively. In case of initial biopsy, the number of needles cores increased from 6 (1991–1996) to 12 (1997–2012) and 18 cores (2002–2012); in case of repeat biopsy, since 2005 a saturation biopsy (SPBx) with >24 cores was performed.

Results

Overall, PCa, normal parenchyma, HGPIN and ASAP were found in 1,379 (34.5 %), 2,400 (60 %), 175 (4.4 %) and 46 (1.1 %) patients, respectively; in case of initial TPBx, the scheme at 18 showed a greater PCa detection in comparison with scheme at 6–12 cores (p < 0.05). In case of repeat biopsy, a higher detection of microfocus of cancer was found performing a SPBx; moreover, 15 % of cancers were localized in the anterior zone. Incidence of hemospermia and urinary retention were correlated with the number of needle cores resulting equal to 30.4 versus 11.1 % in case of SPBx (p < 0.05); moreover, none developed sepsis.

Conclusions

Transperineal prostate biopsy (TPBx) resets the risk of sepsis; moreover, in case of repeat SPBx, the transperineal approach detects a high number of significant PCa localized in the anterior zone (15 % of the cases).

Center MM, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulent J et al (2012) International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol 61:1079–1092PubMedCrossRef

Ferlay J, Parkin DM, Steliarova-Foucher E (2010) Estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2008. Eur J Cancer 46:765–781PubMedCrossRef

Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y et al (2010) Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 183:963–969PubMedCrossRef

Hossack T, Patel MI, Huo A et al (2012) Location and pathological characteristics of cancers in radical prostatectomy specimens identified by transperineal biopsy compared to transrectal biopsy. J Urol 188:781–785PubMedCrossRef

Mabjeesh NJ, Lidawi G, Chen J et al (2012) High detection rate of significant prostate tumours in anterior zones using transperineal ultrasound-guided template saturation biopsy. BJU Int 110:993–997PubMedCrossRef

Bittner N, Merrick GS, Butler WM, et al (2013) Incidence And Pathologic Features Of Prostate Cancer Detected On Transperineal Template-Guided Mapping Biopsy Following Negative Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Biopsy. J Urol (13)00290–295: pii: S0022-5347. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.021. [Epub ahead of print]

Pepe P, Aragona F (2010) Incidence of insignificant prostate cancer using free/total PSA: results of a case-finding protocol on 14,453 patients. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 13:316–319PubMedCrossRef

Pepe P, Aragona F (2005) Prostate needle biopsy: 12 vs 18 cores. Is it necessary? Urol Int 75:19–22CrossRef

Pepe P, Aragona F (2007) Saturation prostate needle biopsy and prostate cancer detection at initial and repeat evaluation. Urology 70:1131–1135PubMedCrossRef

10.

Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK et al (1989) Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 142:71–75PubMed

11.

Ravery V, Goldblatt L, Royer B et al (2000) Extensive biopsy protocol improves the detection rate of prostate cancer. J Urol 164:393–396PubMedCrossRef

12.

Lee AK, Doytchinova T, Chen M et al (2003) Can the core length involved with prostate cancer identify clinically insignificant disease in low risk patients diagnosed on the basis of a single positive core ? Urol Oncol 21:123–127PubMedCrossRef

13.

Okimura O, Coleman JA, de la Taille A et al (2013) Contemporary role of systematic prostate biopsies: indications, techniques, and implications for patient care. Eur Urol 63:214–230CrossRef

14.

Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo G et al (2013) Prostate cancer detection at repeat biopsy: can pelvic phased-array multiparametric MRI replace saturation biopsy? Anticancer Res 33:1195–1199PubMed

15.

Pinto PA, Chung PH, Rastinehad AR et al (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 186:1281–1285PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

16.

Kawakami S, Yamamoto S, Numao N et al (2007) Direct comparison between transrectal and transperineal extended prostate biopsy for the detection of cancer. Int J Urol 14:719–724PubMedCrossRef

17.

Shen PF, Zhu YC, Wei WR et al (2012) The results of transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Androl 14:310–315PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

18.

Abdollah F, Novara G, Briganti A et al (2011) Trans-rectal versus trans-perineal saturation rebiopsy of the prostate: is there a difference in cancer detection rate? Urology 77:921–925PubMedCrossRef

19.

Taira AV, Merrick GS, Galbreath RW et al (2010) Performance of transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy in detecting prostate cancer in the initial and repeat biopsy setting. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 13:71–77PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

20.

21.

Dimmen M, Vlatkovic L, Hole KH et al (2012) Transperineal prostate biopsy detects significant cancer in patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels and previous negative transrectal biopsies. BJU Int 110:69–75CrossRef

22.

23.

Ayres BE, Montgomery BS, Barber NJ et al (2012) The role of transperineal template prostate biopsies in restaging men with prostate cancer managed by active surveillance. BJU Int 109:1170–1176PubMedCrossRef

24.

Barzell WE, Melamed MR, Cathcart P et al (2012) Identifying candidates for active surveillance: an evaluation of the repeat biopsy strategy for men with favorable risk prostate cancer. J Urol 188:762–767PubMedCrossRef

25.

Epstein J, Walsh P, Carmichael M (1994) Pathological and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of non palpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. JAMA 271:368–374PubMedCrossRef

26.

Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y et al (2010) Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 183:963–969PubMedCrossRef

27.

Loeb B, Carter HB, Berndt SI et al (2011) Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEE-Medicare. J Urol 186:1830–1834PubMedCrossRef

28.

Loeb B, Carter HB, Berndt SI et al (2013) Is repeat prostate biopsy associated with a greater risk of hospitalization? Data from SEER-Medicare. J Urol 189:867–870PubMedCrossRef

29.

Miller J, Perumalla C, Heap G (2005) Complications of transrectal versus transperineal prostate biopsy. ANZ J Surg 75:48–50PubMedCrossRef

30.

Kepner GR, Kepner JV (2010) Transperineale prostate biopsy: analysis of a uniform core sampling pattern that yields data on tumor volume limits in negative biopsies. Theor Biol Med Model 7:23–36PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Title: Prostate biopsy: results and advantages of the transperineal approach—twenty-year experience of a single center
Authors: Pietro Pepe
Francesco Aragona
Publication date: 01-04-2014
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 2/2014
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1108-1

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Prostate biopsy: results and advantages of the transperineal approach—twenty-year experience of a single center

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2014

Impact of the length of time between diagnosis and surgical removal of urologic neoplasms on survival

Comparison of post-operative intravesical recurrence and oncological outcomes after open versus laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma

Karnofsky Performance Status predicts overall survival, cancer-specific survival, and progression-free survival following radical cystectomy for urothelial carcinoma

Comparison of oncologic outcomes after radical prostatectomy in men diagnosed with prostate cancer with PSA levels below and above 4 ng/mL

Urodynamic characterization of lower urinary tract symptoms in men less than 40 years of age

Incremental value of transition zone and midline apical biopsy at baseline TRUS-guided biopsy for prostate cancer detection