Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Random biopsy: when, how many and where to take the cores?

  • Topic Paper
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The optimal random prostate biopsy scheme (PBx) in the initial and repeated setting is still an issue of controversy. We performed an analysis of the recent literature about the prostate biopsy techniques.

Methods

We performed a clinical and critical literature review by searching MEDLINE database from January 2005 up to January 2014. Electronic searches were limited to the English language, and the keywords prostate cancer, prostate biopsy, transrectal ultrasound, transperineal prostate biopsy were used.

Results

Prostate biopsy strategy in initial setting. According to the literature and the major international guidelines, the recommended approach in initial setting is still the extended scheme (EPBx) (12 cores). However, there is now a growing evidence in the literature that (a) saturation PBx (>20 cores) (SPBx) might be indicated in patients with PSA <10 ng/ml or low PSA density or large prostate and (b) an individualized approach with more than 12 cores according to the clinical characteristics of the patients may optimize cancer detection in the single patient. Moreover, in the era of multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI), EPBx or SPBX may be substituted by mpMRI-targeted biopsies that have demonstrated superiority over systematic random biopsies for the detection of clinically significant disease and representation of disease burden, while deploying fewer cores. Prostate biopsy strategy in repeat setting. How and how many cores should be taken in the different scenarios in the repeated setting is still unclear. SPBx clearly improves cancer detection if clinical suspicion persists after previous biopsy with negative findings and is able to provide an accurate prediction of prostate tumour volume and grade. Nevertheless, international guidelines do not strongly recommended SPBx in all situations of repeated setting. In the active surveillance and in focal therapy protocols, the optimal schemes have to be defined.

Conclusions

The course of PBx has changed significantly from sextant biopsies to systematic and from extended to SPBx schemes. The issue about the number and location of the cores is still a matter of debate both in initial and in repeat setting. At present, EPBx is sufficient in most of the cases to provide adequate diagnosis and prostate cancer characterization in the initial setting, while SPBx seems to be necessary in repeat setting. The PBx schemes are evolving also because the scenario in which a PBx is necessary is changing. Random prostate PBx do not represent the future, while imaging target biopsy are becoming more popular.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Collin SM, Martin RM, Metcalfe C, Gunnell D, Albertsen PC, Neal D, Hamdy F, Stephens P, Lane JA, Moore R, Donovan J (2008) Prostate-cancer mortality in the USA and UK in 1975-2004: an ecological study. Lancet Oncol 9(5):445–452

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A (2012) Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 62(1):10–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Welch HG, Fisher ES, Gottlieb DJ, Barry MJ (2007) Detection of prostate cancer via biopsy in the Medicare-SEER population during the PSA era. J Natl Cancer Inst 99(18):1395–1400

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA (1989) Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 142(1):71–74

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gore JL, Shariat S, Miles BJ et al (2001) Optimal combinations of systematic sextant and laterally directed biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 165:1554–1559

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Siu W, Dunn RL, Shah RB et al (2005) Use of extended pattern technique for initial prostate biopsy. J Urol 174:505–509

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Scattoni V, Zlotta A, Montironi R, Schulman C, Rigatti P, Montorsi F (2007) Extended and saturation prostatic biopsy in the diagnosis and characterisation of prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol 52(5):1309–1322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Shariat SF, Roehrborn CG (2008) Using biopsy to detect prostate cancer. Rev Urol 10(4):262–280

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Graefen M, Schlomm T (2013) From diagnostic tool to disease monitoring: the growing role of prostate biopsies. Eur Urol 63(2):231–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S, Nelen V et al (2009) Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 360(13):1320–1328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3rd, Buys SS, Chia D, Church TR, Fouad MN, Gelmann EP, Kvale PA, Reding DJ et al (2009) Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med 360(13):1310–1319

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schröder FH (2001) Prostate cancer: natural history and surgical treatment of localised disease. Eur J Cancer 37(Suppl 7):S127–S136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS, Parnes HL, Minasian LM, Ford LG, Lippman SM, Crawford ED, Crowley JJ, Coltman CA Jr (2004) Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level ≤ 4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med 350(22):2239–2246 (Erratum in: N Engl J Med 2004; 351 (14): 1470)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Caras RJ, Sterbis JR (2014) Prostate cancer nomograms: a review of their use in cancer detection and treatment. Curr Urol Rep 15(3):391

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Shariat SF, Karakiewicz PI, Roehrborn CG, Kattan MW (2008) An updated catalog of prostate cancer predictive tools. Cancer 113(11):3075–3099

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Eichler K, Hempel S, Wilby J, Myers L, Bachmann LM, Kleijnen J (2006) Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J Urol 175(5):1605–1612

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ploussard G, Nicolaiew N, Marchand C et al (2014) Prospective evaluation of an extended 21-core biopsy scheme as initial prostate cancer diagnostic strategy. Eur Urol 65:154–161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Obek C, Ozkan B, Tunc B, Can G, Yalcin V, Solok V (2004) Comparison of 3 different methods of anesthesia before transrectal prostate biopsy: a prospective randomized trial. J Urol 172(2):502–505

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Onur R, Littrup PJ, Pontes JE, Bianco FJ Jr (2004) Contemporary impact of transrectal ultrasound lesions for prostate cancer detection. J Urol 172(2):512–514

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Toi A, Neill MG, Lockwood GA, Sweet JM, Tammsalu LA, Fleshner NE (2007) The continuing importance of transrectal ultrasound identification of prostatic lesions. J Urol 177(2):516–520

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Frauscher E, Helweg G, Gotwald TF et al (1998) The value of contrast-enhanced color Doppler ultrasonography in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Radiology 209:417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Halpern EJ, Rosenberg M, Gomolla LG (2001) Contrast enhanced sonography of the prostate. Radiology 219:219–225

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Babaain RJ, Troncoso P, Bhadkamkar DA, Johston DA (2001) Analysis of clinicopathologic factors predicting outcome after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 91:1414–1422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mian BM, Naya Y, Okihara F et al (2006) Role of the prostate biopsy schemes in accurate prediction of Gleason score. Urology 67:379–383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Moore CM, Robertson NL, Arsanious N, Middleton T, Villers A, Klotz L, Taneja SS, Emberton M (2013) Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. Eur Urol 63(1):125–140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Truong H, Stamatakis L, Vourganti S, Nix J, Hoang AN, Walton-Diaz A, Shuch B, Weintraub M, Kruecker J, Amalou H, Turkbey B, Merino MJ, Choyke PL, Wood BJ, Pinto PA (2013) Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion biopsy significantly upgrades prostate cancer versus systematic 12-core transrectal ultrasound biopsy. Eur Urol 64(5):713–719

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Robertson NL, Emberton M, Moore CM (2013) MRI-targeted prostate biopsy: a review of technique and results. Nat Rev Urol 10(10):589–597

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Rais-Bahrami S, Siddiqui MM, Turkbey B, Stamatakis L, Logan J, Hoang AN, Walton-Diaz A, Vourganti S, Truong H, Kruecker J, Merino MJ, Wood BJ, Choyke PL, Pinto PA (2013) Utility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging suspicion levels for detecting prostate cancer. J Urol 190(5):1721–1727

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Nelson AW, Harvey RC, Parker RA, Kastner C, Doble A, Gnanapragasam VJ (2013) Repeat prostate biopsy strategies after initial negative biopsy: meta-regression comparing cancer detection of transperineal, transrectal saturation and MRI guided biopsy. PLoS One 8(2):e57480

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hambrock T, Hoeks C, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C, Scheenen T, Fütterer J, Bouwense S, van Oort I, Schröder F, Huisman H, Barentsz J (2012) Prospective assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using 3-T diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies versus a systematic 10-core transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy cohort. Eur Urol 61(1):177–184

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Linder BJ, Frank I, Umbreit EC, Shimko MS, Fernández N, Rangel LJ, Karnes RJ (2013) Standard and saturation transrectal prostate biopsy techniques are equally accurate among prostate cancer active surveillance candidates. Int J Urol 20(9):860–864

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Cooner WH, Mosley BR, Rutherford CL Jr, Beard JH, Pond HS, Terry WJ et al (1990) Prostate cancer detection in a clinical urological practice by ultrasonography, digital rectal examination and prostate specific antigen. J Urol 143:1146–1152

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Naughton CK, Miller DC, Mager DE, Ornstein DK, Catalona WJ (2000) A prospective randomized trial comparing 6 versus 12 prostate biopsy cores: impact on cancer detection. J Urol 164(2):388–392

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Punglia RS, D’Amico AV, Catalona WJ, Roehl KA, Kuntz KM (2003) Effect of verification bias on screening for prostate cancer by measurement of prostate-specific antigen. N Engl J Med 349(4):335–342

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Jones JS, Patel A, Schoenfield L, Rabets JC, Zippe CD, Magi-Galluzzi C (2006) Saturation technique does not improve cancer detection as an initial prostate biopsy strategy. J Urol 175(2):485–488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Zaytoun OM, Moussa AS, Gao T, Fareed K, Jones JS (2011) Office based transrectal saturation biopsy improves prostate cancer detection compared to extended biopsy in the repeat biopsy population. J Urol 186(3):850–854

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Jiang X, Zhu S, Feng G, Zhang Z, Li C, Li H, Wang C, Xu Y (2013) Is an initial saturation prostate biopsy scheme better than an extended scheme for detection of prostate cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 63(6):1031–1039

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Scattoni V, Raber M, Abdollah F, Roscigno M, Dehò F, Angiolilli D et al (2010) Biopsy schemes with the fewest cores for detecting 95 % of the prostate cancers detected by a 24-core biopsy. Eur Urol 57(1):1–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Li YH, Elshafei A, Li J, Gong M, Susan L, Fareed K, Jones JS (2013) Transrectal saturation technique may improve cancer detection as an initial prostate biopsy strategy in men with prostate-specific antigen <10 ng/ml. Eur Urol. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.047

  40. Thompson IM, Ankerst DP, Chi C, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS, Feng Z, Parnes HL, Coltman CA Jr (2006) Assessing prostate cancer risk: results from the prostate cancer prevention trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 98(8):529–534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Gallina A, Chun FK, Suardi N, Eastham JA, Perrotte P, Graefen M, Hutterer G, Huland H, Klein EA, Reuther A et al (2008) Comparison of stage migration patterns between Europe and the USA: an analysis of 11 350 men treated with radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. BJU Int 101(12):1513–1518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Hogarth RM, Karelaia N (2007) Heuristic and linear models of judgment: matching rules and environments. Psychol Rev 114(3):733–758

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Chun FK, Karakiewicz PI, Briganti A, Gallina A, Kattan MW, Montorsi F, Huland H, Graefen M (2006) Prostate cancer nomograms: an update. Eur Urol 50(5):914–926 (discussion 926)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kawakami S, Numao N, Okubo Y, Koga F, Yamamoto S, Saito K, Fujii Y, Yonese J, Masuda H, Kihara K et al (2008) Development, validation, and head-to-head comparison of logistic regression-based nomograms and artificial neural network models predicting prostate cancer on initial extended biopsy. Eur Urol 54(3):601–611

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Ide H, Yasuda M, Nishio K, Saito K, Isotani S, Kamiyama Y, Muto S, Horie S (2008) Development of a nomogram for predicting high-grade prostate cancer on biopsy: the significance of serum testosterone levels. Anticancer Res 28(4C):2487–2492

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kawakami S, Okuno T, Yonese J et al (2007) Optimal sampling sites for repeat prostate biopsy: a recursive portioning analysis of three-dimensional 26-core systematic biopsy. Eur Urol 51:675–683

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Delongchamps NB, de la Roza G, Jones R, Jumbelic M, Haas GP (2009) Saturation biopsies on autopsied prostates for detecting and characterizing prostate cancer. BJU Int 103(1):49–54

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Scattoni V, Raber M, Capitanio U, Abdollah F, Roscigno M, Angiolilli D et al (2011) The optimal rebiopsy prostatic scheme depends on patient clinical characteristics: results of a recursive partitioning analysis based on a 24-core systematic scheme. Eur Urol 60(4):834–841

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Djavan B, Ravery V, Zlotta A et al (2001) Prospective evaluation of prostate cancer detected on biopsies 1, 2, 3 and 4: when should we stop? J Urol 166:1679–1683

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Campos-Fernandes JL, Bastien L, Nicolaiew N et al (2009) Prostate cancer detection rate in patients with repeat extended 21-sample needle biopsy. Eur Urol 55:600–609

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Tan N, Lane B, Li J et al (2008) Prostate cancers diagnosed at repeat biopsy are smaller and less likely to be high grade. J Urol 180:1325–1329

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Lane BR, Zippe CD, Abouassaly A, Schoenfield L, Magi-Galluzzi C, Stephen Jones L (2008) Saturation technique does not decrease cancer detection during follow-up after initial prostate biopsy. J Urol 179:1749–1750

    Google Scholar 

  53. Guichard G, Larre S, Gallina A et al (2007) Extended 21-sample needle biopsy protocol for diagnosis of prostate cancer in 1000 consecutives patients. Eur Urol 52:430–435

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Jones JS (2007) Saturation biopsy for detecting and characterizing prostate cancer. BJU Int 99(6):1340–1344

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Simon J, Kuefer R, Bartsch G Jr, Volkmer BG, Hautmann RE, Gottfried HW (2008) Intensifying the saturation biopsy technique for detecting prostate cancer after previous negative biopsies: a step in the wrong direction. BJU Int 102(4):459–462

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Stewart CS, Leibovich BC, Weaver AL, Lieber MM (2001) Prostate cancer diagnosis using a saturation needle biopsy technique after previous negative sextant biopsies. J Urol 166:86–91 (discussion 92)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Borboroglu PG, Corner SW, Riffenburgh RH, Amling CL (2000) Extensive repeat trans-rectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in patient with previous benign sextant biopsies. J Urol 163:158–162

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. de la Taille A, Antiphon P, Salomon L et al (2003) Prospective evaluation of a 21-sample needle biopsy procedure designed to improve the prostate cancer detection rate. Urology 61:1181–1186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Rabets JC, Jones JS, Patel A et al (2004) Prostate cancer detection with office based saturation biopsy in a repeat biopsy population. J Urol 172:94–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Walz J, Graefen M, Chun FK et al (2006) High incidence of prostate cancer detected by saturation biopsy after previous negative biopsy series. Eur Urol 50:498–505

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Bott L, Langley S, Hindley L, Montgomery B (2009) Intensifying the saturation biopsy technique for detecting prostate cancer after previous negative biopsies: a step in the wrong direction. BJU Int 103(5):701

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Pepe P, Galia A, Fraggetta F et al (2005) Prediction by quantitative histology on pathological stage in prostate cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 31:309–313

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Sajadi KP, Kim T, Terris MK, Brown JA, Lewis RW (2007) High yield of saturation prostate biopsy for patients with previous negative biopsies and small prostates. Urology 70(4):691–695

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Lee MC, Moussa AS, Yu C, Kattan MW, Magi-Galluzzi C, Jones JS (2010) Multifocal high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia is a risk factor for subsequent prostate cancer. J Urol 184(5):1958–1962

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Satoh T, Matsumoto K, Fujita T, Tabata K, Okusa H, Tsuboi T, Arakawa T, Irie A, Egawa S, Baba S (2005) Cancer core distribution in patients diagnosed by extended transperineal prostate biopsy. Urology 66(1):114–118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Moran BJ, Braccioforte MH, Conterato DJ (2006) Re-biopsy of the prostate using a stereotactic transperineal technique. J Urol 176(4 Pt 1):1376–1381 (discussion 1381)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Pryor MB, Schellhammer PF (2002) The pursuit of prostate cancer in patients with a rising prostate-specific antigen and multiple negative transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies. Clin Prostate Cancer 1(3):172–176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Fleshner NE, Cookson MS, Soloway SM, Fair WR (1998) Repeat transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a strategy to improve the reliability of needle biopsy grading in patients with well-differentiated prostate cancer. Urology 52(4):659–662

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Merrick GS, Gutman S, Andreini H, Taubenslag W, Lindert DL, Curtis R, Adamovich E, Anderson R, Allen Z, Butler W, Wallner K (2007) Prostate cancer distribution in patients diagnosed by transperineal template-guided saturation biopsy. Eur Urol 52(3):715–723

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Novara G, Boscolo-Berto R, Lamon C, Fracalanza S, Gardiman M, Artibani W, Ficarra V (2010) Detection rate and factors predictive the presence of prostate cancer in patients undergoing ultrasonography-guided transperineal saturation biopsies of the prostate. BJU Int 105(9):1242–1246

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Pinkstaff DM, Igel TC, Petrou SP, Broderick GA, Wehle MJ, Young PR (2005) Systematic transperineal ultrasound-guided template biopsy of the prostate: three-year experience. Urology 65(4):735–739

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Scientific Institute H San Raffaele, University Vita-Salute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy

    Vincenzo Scattoni, Umberto Capitanio, Andrea Gallina, Alberto Briganti & Francesco Montorsi

  2. Urology Unit, Department of Surgery, S.Anna Hospital, Como, Italy

    Carmen Maccagnano

Authors
  1. Vincenzo Scattoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carmen Maccagnano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Umberto Capitanio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrea Gallina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alberto Briganti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Francesco Montorsi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vincenzo Scattoni.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Scattoni, V., Maccagnano, C., Capitanio, U. et al. Random biopsy: when, how many and where to take the cores?. World J Urol 32, 859–869 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1335-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-014-1335-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation