Top

Published in:

01-12-2024 | Prostate Cancer | Invited Review

The role of urology and radiology in prostate biopsy: current trends and future perspectives

Authors: Benjamin M. Mac Curtain, Hugo C. Temperley, John A. O. Kelly, James Ryan, Wanyang Qian, Niall O’Sullivan, Kieran J. Breen, Colin J. Mc Carthy, Ian Brennan, Niall F. Davis

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 1/2024

Abstract

Purpose

Prostate biopsy is central to the accurate histological diagnosis of prostate cancer. In current practice, the biopsy procedure can be performed using a transrectal or transperineal route with different technologies available for targeting of lesions within the prostate. Historically, the biopsy procedure was performed solely by urologists, but with the advent of image-guided techniques, the involvement of radiologists in prostate biopsy has become more common. Herein, we discuss the pros, cons and future considerations regarding their ongoing role.

Methods

A narrative review regarding the current evidence was completed. PubMed and Cochrane central register of controlled trials were search until January 2024. All study types were of consideration if published after 2000 and an English language translation was available.

Results

There are no published studies that directly compare outcomes of prostate biopsy when performed by a urologist or radiologist. In all published studies regarding the learning curve for prostate biopsy, the procedure was performed by urologists. These studies suggest that the learning curve for prostate biopsy is between 10 and 50 cases to reach proficiency in terms of prostate cancer detection and complications. It is recognised that many urologists are poorly able to accurately interpret multi parametric (mp)-MRI of the prostate. Collaboration between the specialities is of importance with urology offering the advantage of being involved in prior and future care of the patient while radiology has the advantage of being able to expertly interpret preprocedure MRI.

Conclusion

There is no evidence to suggest that prostate biopsy should be solely performed by a specific specialty. The most important factor remains knowledge of the relevant anatomy and sufficient volume of cases to develop and maintain skills.

Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F (2021) Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin 71(3):209–249CrossRefPubMed

Gandaglia G, Leni R, Bray F, Fleshner N, Freedland SJ, Kibel A et al (2021) Epidemiology and Prevention of Prostate Cancer. Eur Urol Oncol 4(6):877–892CrossRefPubMed

Siegel DA, O’Neil ME, Richards TB, Dowling NF, Weir HK (2020) Prostate Cancer Incidence and Survival, by Stage and Race/Ethnicity - United States, 2001–2017. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 69(41):1473–1480CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Streicher J, Meyerson BL, Karivedu V, Sidana A (2019) A review of optimal prostate biopsy: indications and techniques. Ther Adv Urol 11:1756287219870074CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Pradere B, Veeratterapillay R, Dimitropoulos K, Yuan Y, Omar MI, MacLennan S et al (2021) Nonantibiotic Strategies for the Prevention of Infectious Complications following Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Urol 205(3):653–663CrossRefPubMed

Xiang J, Yan H, Li J, Wang X, Chen H, Zheng X (2019) Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol 17(1):31CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Berquin C, Perletti G, Develtere D, Van Puyvelde H, Pauwels E, De Groote R et al (2023) Transperineal vs transrectal prostate biopsies under local anesthesia: A prospective cohort study on patient tolerability and complication rates. Urol Oncol 41(9):e17–e23CrossRef

Berry B, Parry MG, Sujenthiran A, Nossiter J, Cowling TE, Aggarwal A et al (2020) Comparison of complications after transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsy: a national population-based study. BJU Int 126(1):97–103CrossRefPubMed

Ahdoot M, Wilbur AR, Reese SE, Lebastchi AH, Mehralivand S, Gomella PT et al (2020) MRI-Targeted, Systematic, and Combined Biopsy for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis. N Engl J Med 382(10):917–928CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Connor MJ, Gorin MA, Eldred-Evans D, Bass EJ, Desai A, Dudderidge T et al (2023) Landmarks in the evolution of prostate biopsy. Nat Rev Urol 20(4):241–258CrossRefPubMed

11.

Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, Claudon M, Roy C, Mège-Lechevallier F et al (2019) Use of prostate systematic and targeted biopsy on the basis of multiparametric MRI in biopsy-naive patients (MRI-FIRST): a prospective, multicentre, paired diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol 20(1):100–109CrossRefPubMed

12.

Stabile A, Giganti F, Kasivisvanathan V, Giannarini G, Moore CM, Padhani AR et al (2020) Factors Influencing Variability in the Performance of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review. Eur Urol Oncol 3(2):145–167CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Kohestani K, Wallström J, Dehlfors N, Sponga OM, Månsson M, Josefsson A et al (2019) Performance and inter-observer variability of prostate MRI (PI-RADS version 2) outside high-volume centres. Scand J Urol 53(5):304–311CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Czarniecki M, Jakuciński M, Królicki L (2016) Prostate MRI - an update for the referring urologist. Cent European J Urol 69(2):162–169PubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Hong CW, Amalou H, Xu S, Turkbey B, Yan P, Kruecker J, Pinto PA, Choyke PL, Wood BJ (2014) Prostate biopsy for the interventional radiologist. J Vasc Interv Radiol 25(5):675–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2013.12.568CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Knechtges PM, Carlos RC (2007) The evolving role of radiologists within the health care system. J Am Coll Radiol 4(9):626–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2007.05.014CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Drost FH, Osses DF, Nieboer D, Steyerberg EW, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ, Schoots IG (2019) Prostate MRI, with or without MRI-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD012663PubMed

18.

Spilseth B, Ghai S, Patel NU, Taneja SS, Margolis DJ, Rosenkrantz AB (2018) A Comparison of Radiologists’ and Urologists’ Opinions Regarding Prostate MRI Reporting: Results From a Survey of Specialty Societies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 210(1):101–107. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18241. (Epub 2017 Oct 24 PMID: 29064758)CrossRefPubMed

19.

Wang NN, Fan RE, Ghanouni P, Sonn GA (2019) Teaching Urologists “How to Read Multi-Parametric Prostate MRIs Using PIRADSv2”: Results of an iBook Pilot Study. Urology 131:40–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2019.04.040. (Epub 2019 May 29 PMID: 31150691)CrossRefPubMed

20.

Penzkofer T, Tempany-Afdhal CM (2014) Prostate cancer detection and diagnosis: the role of MR and its comparison with other diagnostic modalities–a radiologist’s perspective. NMR Biomed 27(1):3–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.3002CrossRefPubMed

21.

Kang HC, Jo N, Bamashmos AS, Ahmed M, Sun J, Ward JF, Choi H (2021) Accuracy of Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Reader Experience Matters. Eur Urol Open Sci 27:53–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2021.03.004CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Mantica G, Suardi N, Smelzo S, Esperto F, Chierigo F, Tappero S, Borghesi M, La Rocca R, Oderda M, Ennas M, Stabile A, De Cobelli F, Napolitano L, Papalia R, Gontero P, Introini C, Briganti A, Scarpa RM, Mirone V, Montorsi F, Gaboardi F, Terrone C, Cardone G (2022) Are Urologists Ready for Interpretation of Multiparametric MRI Findings? A Prospective Multicentric Evaluation. Diagnostics (Basel) 12(11):2656. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12112656CrossRefPubMed

23.

Ippoliti S, Orecchia L, Esperto F, Langer Wroclawski M, Manenti G, Barrett T, Kastner C, Miano R (2023) Survey on prostate MRI reading and interpretation among urology residents in Italy, Brazil and the UK: a cry for help. Minerva Urol Nephrol 75(3):297–307. https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-6051.22.05043-1. (Epub 2022 Oct 26 PMID: 36286400)CrossRefPubMed

24.

Kunkel EJ, Bakker JR, Myers RE, Oyesanmi O, Gomella LG (2000) Biopsychosocial aspects of prostate cancer. Psychosomatics 41(2):85–94CrossRefPubMed

25.

Winters DA, Mehmi A, Odedra A, Wilson L, Ancheta J, Buttleman S et al (2023) Developing and centralising a nurse-led local anaesthetic transperineal biopsy service during COVID. BJUI Compass 4(6):715–721CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Brassil M, Li Y, Ordon M, Colak E, Vlachou P (2022) Infection complications after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: A radiology department’s experience and strategy for improvement. Can Urol Assoc J 16(11):E523–E527CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Marks L, Young S, Natarajan S (2013) MRI-ultrasound fusion for guidance of targeted prostate biopsy. Curr Opin Urol 23(1):43–50CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Das CJ, Netaji A, Razik A, Verma S (2020) MRI-Targeted Prostate Biopsy: What Radiologists Should Know. Korean J Radiol 21(9):1087–1094. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2019.0817CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Benchikh El Fegoun A, El Atat R, Choudat L, El Helou E, Hermieu J-F, Dominique S et al (2013) The Learning Curve of Transrectal Ultrasound-guided Prostate Biopsies: Implications for Training Programs. Urology 81(1):12–16CrossRefPubMed

30.

Lenfant L, Beitone C, Troccaz J, Rouprêt M, Seisen T, Voros S, Mozer PC.) Learning curve for fusion magnetic resonance imaging targeted prostate biopsy and three-dimensional transrectal ultrasonography segmentation. BJU International.n/a(n/a).

31.

Cata ED, Van Praet C, Andras I, Kadula P, Ognean R, Buzoianu M et al (2021) Analyzing the learning curves of a novice and an experienced urologist for transrectal magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion prostate biopsy. Translational Andrology and Urology 10(5):1956–1965CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Nguyen CT, Gao T, Hernandez AV, Jones JS (2010) Can residents perform transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy with patient comfort comparable to biopsy performed by attending staff urologists? Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 13(1):52–57CrossRefPubMed

33.

Song J-a, He B-m, Li H-s, Yu X-w, Shi Z-k, Ren G-y et al (2021) A Prospective Study Comparing Cancer Detection Rates of Transperineal Prostate Biopsies Performed by Junior Urologists versus a Senior Consultant in a Real-World Setting. Urol Int 106(9):884–890CrossRefPubMed

34.

Group CPC. Cambridge Prostate mpMRI and Biopsy Course 2019 [Available from: https://www.baus.org.uk/_userfiles/pages/files/events/MRI%20Course%202019%20Flyer.pdf.

35.

Staropoli PC, Gregori NZ, Junk AK, Galor A, Goldhardt R, Goldhagen BE et al (2018) Surgical Simulation Training Reduces Intraoperative Cataract Surgery Complications Among Residents. Simul Healthc 13(1):11–15CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Schlegel C, Zureikat AH (2021) The Role of Simulation in Attaining Proficiency in Minimally Invasive Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 31(5):561–564CrossRefPubMed

37.

Ghazi A (2022) Patient specific simulation in urology: where are we now and what does the future look like? World J Urol 40(3):617–619CrossRefPubMed

38.

Cabana MD, Jee SH (2004) Does continuity of care improve patient outcomes. J Fam Pract 53(12):974–980PubMed

39.

Phillips JL, Currow DC (2010) Cancer as a chronic disease. Collegian 17(2):47–50CrossRefPubMed

40.

Selby P, Popescu R, Lawler M, Butcher H, Costa A (2019) The value and future developments of multidisciplinary team cancer care. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 39:332–340CrossRefPubMed

41.

Hosny A, Parmar C, Quackenbush J, Schwartz LH, Aerts HJWL (2018) Artificial intelligence in radiology. Nat Rev Cancer 18(8):500–510. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-018-0016-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Mahay U, Jenkins P, Watkins L, Mandal I, Lewis O, Harborne KE, Patel S, Reicher J, Liu WY, Zhong J, Hamady M (2023) Interventional radiology training in the UK: a view from within-a national survey. Br J Radiol 96(1151):20230039CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Becker M (2023) How to prepare for a bright future of radiology in Europe. Insights Imaging 14:168. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01525-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Power J, Murphy M, Hutchinson B, Murphy D, McNicholas M, O’Malley K, Murray J, Cronin C (2022) Transperineal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: what the radiologist needs to know. Insights Imaging 13(1):77. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-022-01210-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

45.

Ryan J, Khandelwal A, Fasih N (2013) Trends in radiology fellowship training: a Canadian review 2009–2011. Can Assoc Radiol J 64(3):176–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carj.2011.12.015. (Epub 2012 May 9 PMID: 22575592)CrossRefPubMed

46.

Harden SP, Anstee A, Craven I, Davies S, Dhillon P, Johnston M, Jones J, Rajesh A, Wardle P, Young J, Ramsden W (2022) Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) short-life working party on the future of radiology training. Radiology training. What good looks like, now and in the future. Clin Radiol 77(12):902–903CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

47.

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 186:1281–1285CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

48.

Fang JH, Zhang L, Xie X, Zhao P, Bao L, Kong F (2023) Comparative diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy versus systematic biopsy for clinically significant prostate cancer. PeerJ 11:e16614CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

49.

Jahnen M, Amiel T, Wagner T, Kirchhoff F, Büchler JW, Düwel C et al (2023) Does experience change the role of systematic biopsy during MRI-fusion biopsy of the prostate? World J Urol 41(10):2699–2705CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

50.

Altok M, Demirel C, Kang HC, Choi H, John D, Inguillo IA et al (2022) Impact of MRI/US fusion-guided prostate biopsy on biopsy-naïve patients: A single urologist’s experience. BJUI Compass 3(1):19–25CrossRefPubMed

51.

Jiang X, Zhang J, Tang J, Xu Z, Zhang W, Zhang Q et al (2016) Magnetic resonance imaging: ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy outperforms standard approaches in detecting prostate cancer: A meta-analysis. Mol Clin Oncol 5(2):301–309CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

52.

Pinto PA, Chung PH, Rastinehad AR, Baccala AA Jr, Kruecker J, Benjamin CJ, Xu S, Yan P, Kadoury S, Chua C, Locklin JK, Turkbey B, Shih JH, Gates SP, Buckner C, Bratslavsky G, Linehan WM, Glossop ND, Choyke PL, Wood BJ (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(4):1281–1285CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

53.

Watts KL, Frechette L, Muller B, Ilinksy D, Kovac E, Sankin A, Aboumohamed A (2020) Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing cognitive vs image-guided fusion prostate biopsy for the detection of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 38(9):e19–e25CrossRef

54.

Siragusa DA, Cardella JF, Hieb RA, Kaufman JA, Kim HS, Nikolic B, Misra S, Resnick SA, Saad WE, Vatakencherry G, Wallace MJ (2013) Society of Interventional Radiology. Requirements for training in interventional radiology. J Vasc Interv Radiol 24(11):1609–1612CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

55.

European Society of Radiology (ESR) (2019) Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE). Interventional radiology in European radiology departments: a joint survey from the European Society of Radiology (ESR) and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE). Insights Imaging 10:16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-019-0698-6CrossRef

56.

(2023) Nowcasting waiting lists for elective procedures and surgery in England: a modelling study. Lancet 402 :1–74.

Title: The role of urology and radiology in prostate biopsy: current trends and future perspectives
Authors: Benjamin M. Mac Curtain
Hugo C. Temperley
John A. O. Kelly
James Ryan
Wanyang Qian
Niall O’Sullivan
Kieran J. Breen
Colin J. Mc Carthy
Ian Brennan
Niall F. Davis
Publication date: 01-12-2024
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Prostate Cancer
Prostate Cancer
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 1/2024
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-024-04967-6

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

The role of urology and radiology in prostate biopsy: current trends and future perspectives

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Contemporary validation of cT1a vs. cT1b substaging of incidental prostate cancer

A PSMA PET/CT-based risk model for prediction of concordance between targeted biopsy and combined biopsy in detecting prostate cancer

The survival benefit of metastasectomy for metastatic non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study

High frequency of concomitant squamous metaplasia in bulbar urethral stricture and its association with reconstructive delay and urethral rest

Predictors of elaborated perineal or a combined abdominoperineal approach during repair for pelvic fracture urethral injury

Survival benefit of nephroureterectomy in systemic therapy exposed metastatic upper tract urinary urothelial carcinoma patients