Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ultrasound for Prostate Biopsy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Practical Urological Ultrasound

  • 970 Accesses

Abstract

The evaluation of prostatic conditions prior to the advent of sonographic techniques relied on palpation of the gland and “blind” sampling techniques via needle aspiration and biopsy. With the development of B-mode ultrasound in the 1950s, and probes capable of providing images to the clinician in real-time, gray-scale ultrasound became the standard method of prostate imaging for most prostate conditions. The position of the prostate in the pelvis, tucked as it were beneath the pubis and anterior to the rectum, lends itself to the application of a transrectal approach. The transrectal approach to imaging the gland has become the standard of care for the diagnostic evaluation of prostatic conditions, prostate biopsy, and therapeutic approaches to prostate cancer. In addition, the transperineal approach used for saturation biopsies and the advent of MRI fusion biopsy techniques have been important tools in the armamentarium of the urologist.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ferguson R. Prostatic neoplasms; their diagnosis by needle puncture and aspiration. Am J Surg. 1930;9:507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Astraldi A. Diagnosis of cancer of the prostate; biopsy by rectal route. Urol Cutan Rev. 1937;41:421.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Wild J, Reid J. Echographic tissue diagnosis. Fourth Annual Conference on Ultrasound Therapy, Philadelphia, PA; 1955.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Wantanabe H, Kato H, Kato T. Diagnostic application of ultrasonotomography to the prostate. Nippon Hinyokika Gakkai Zasshi. 1968;59:273.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Crawford ED, Haynes AL Jr, Story MW, et al. Prevention of urinary tract infection and sepsis following transrectal prostatic biopsy. J Urol. 1982;127:449.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Berger AP, Gozzi C, Steiner H, et al. Complication rate of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: a comparison among 3 protocols with 6, 10 and 15 cores. J Urol. 2004;171:1478.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cannon GM Jr, Smaldone MC, Paterson DL. Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase gram-negative sepsis following prostate biopsy: implications for use of fluoroquinolone prophylaxis. Can J Urol. 2007;14:3653.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ozden E, Bostanci Y, Yakupoglu KY, et al. Incidence of acute prostatitis caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli after transrectal prostate biopsy. Urology. 2009;74(1):119–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dajani AS, Taubert KA, Wilson W, et al. Prevention of bacterial endocarditis: recommendations by the American Heart Association. Clin Infect Dis. 1997;25:1448.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nishimura RA, Carabello BA, Faxon DP, et al. ACC/AHA 2008 guideline update on valvular heart disease: focused update on infective endocarditis: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines: endorsed by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation. 2008;118:887.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bratzler DW, Houck PM. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery: an advisory statement from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project. Clin Infect Dis. 2004;38:1706.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lindert KA, Kabalin JN, Terris MK. Bacteremia and bacteriuria after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2000;164:76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. De Sio M, D’Armiento M, Di Lorenzo G, et al. The need to reduce patient discomfort during transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy: what do we know? BJU Int. 2005;96:977.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Soloway MS. Do unto others—why I would want anesthesia for my prostate biopsy. Urology. 2003;62:973.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nijs HG, Essink-Bot ML, DeKoning HJ, et al. Why do men refuse or attend population-based screening for prostate cancer? J Public Health Med. 2000;22:312.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nash PA, Bruce JE, Indudhara R, et al. Transrectal ultrasound guided prostatic nerve blockade eases systematic needle biopsy of the prostate. J Urol. 1996;155:607.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Schostak M, Christoph F, Muller M, et al. Optimizing local anesthesia during 10-core biopsy of the prostate. Urology. 2002;60:253.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Trucchi A, De Nunzio C, Mariani S, et al. Local anesthesia reduces pain associated with transrectal prostatic biopsy. A prospective randomized study. Urol Int. 2005;74:209.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hergan L, Kashefi C, Parsons JK. Local anesthetic reduces pain associated with transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a meta-analysis. Urology. 2007;69:520.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bozlu M, Atici S, Ulusoy E, et al. Periprostatic lidocaine infiltration and/or synthetic opioid (meperidine or tramadol) administration have no analgesic benefit during prostate biopsy. A prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study comparing different methods. Urol Int. 2004;72:308.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Vanni AP, Schaal CH, Costa RP, et al. Is the periprostatic anesthetic blockade advantageous in ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy? Int Braz J Urol. 2004;30:114.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Walsh K, O’Brien T, Salemmi A, et al. A randomised trial of periprostatic local anaesthetic for transrectal biopsy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2003;6:242.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Adamakis I, Mitropoulos D, Haritopoulos K, et al. Pain during transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate biopsy: a randomized prospective trial comparing periprostatic infiltration with lidocaine with the intrarectal instillation of lidocaine-prilocaine cream. World J Urol. 2004;22:281.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Obek C, Ozkan B, Tunc B, et al. Comparison of 3 different methods of anesthesia before transrectal prostate biopsy: a prospective randomized trial. J Urol. 2004;172:502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rabets JC, Jones JS, Patel AR, et al. Bupivacaine provides rapid, effective periprostatic anesthesia for transrectal prostate biopsy. BJU Int. 2004;93:1216.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Nambirajan T, Woolsey S, Mahendra V, et al. Efficacy and safety peri-prostatic local anesthetic injection in trans-rectal biopsy of the prostrate: a prospective randomized study. Surgeon. 2004;2:221.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Terris MK, Stamey TA. Determination of prostate volume by transrectal ultrasound. J Urol. 1991;145:984.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Djavan B, Zlotta A, Remzi M, et al. Optimal predictors of prostate cancer on repeat prostate biopsy: a prospective study of 1,051 men. J Urol. 2000;163:1144.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Zagoria RJ. Genitourinary radiology. In: Thrall JH, editor. The requisites. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Mosby; 2004. p. 335–8.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Gregg DC, Sty JR. Sonographic diagnosis of enlarged prostatic utricle. J Ultrasound Med. 1989;8:51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. McDermott V, Orr JD, Wild SR. Duplicated Mullerian duct remnants associated with unilateral renal agenesis. Abdom Imaging. 1993;18:193.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. King BF, Hattery RR, Lieber MM, et al. Congenital cystic disease of the seminal vesicle. Radiology. 1991;178:207.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Frauscher F, Klauser A, Volgger H, et al. Comparison of contrast enhanced color Doppler targeted biopsy with conventional systematic biopsy: impact on prostate cancer detection. J Urol. 2002;167:1648.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Shinohara K, Scardino PT, Carter SS, et al. Pathologic basis of the sonographic appearance of the normal and malignant prostate. Urol Clin North Am. 1989;16:675.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Terris MK, Macy M, Freiha FS. Transrectal ultrasound appearance of prostatic granulomas secondary to bacillus Calmette-Guerin instillation. J Urol. 1997;158:126.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Purohit RS, Shinohara K, Meng MV, et al. Imaging clinically localized prostate cancer. Urol Clin North Am. 2003;30:279.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Varghese SL, Grossfeld GD. The prostatic gland: malignancies other than adenocarcinomas. Radiol Clin N Am. 2000;38:179.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ramey JR, Halpern EJ, Gomella LG. Ultrasonography and biopsy of the prostate. In: Wein AJ, editor. Campbell-Walsh urology, vol. 3. 9th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2007. p. 2883–95.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Bigler SA, Deering RE, Brawer MK. Comparison of microscopic vascularity in benign and malignant prostate tissue. Hum Pathol. 1993;24:220.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Cornud F, Hamida K, Flam T, et al. Endorectal color Doppler sonography and endorectal MR imaging features of nonpalpable prostate cancer: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;175:1161.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Halpern EJ, Strup SE. Using gray-scale and color and power Doppler sonography to detect prostatic cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174:623.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Martinoli C, Derchi L, Rizzatto G, et al. Power Doppler sonography: general principles, clinical applications, and future prospects. Eur Radiol. 1998;8:1224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003300050540.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kahraman T, et al. Comparison of power Doppler ultrasound with gray scale transrectal ultrasound in predicting cancer positive prostate biopsy cores. Eurasian J Med. 2010;42(2):81–5. https://doi.org/10.5152/eajm.2010.23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Arger PH, Malkowicz SB, VanArsdalen KN, et al. Color and power Doppler sonography in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: comparison between vascular density and total vascularity. J Ultrasound Med. 2004;23:623.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Okihara K, Kojima M, Nakanouchi T, et al. Transrectal power Doppler imaging in the detection of prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2000;85:1053.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kelly IM, Lees WR, Rickards D. Prostate cancer and the role of color Doppler US. Radiology. 1993;189:153.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Halpern EJ, Frauscher F, Strup SE, et al. Prostate: high-frequency Doppler US imaging for cancer detection. Radiology. 2002;225:71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Levine MA, Ittman M, Melamed J, et al. Two consecutive sets of transrectal ultrasound guided sextant biopsies of the prostate for the detection of prostate cancer. J Urol. 1998;159:471.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Eskew LA, Bare RL, McCullough DL. Systematic 5 region prostate biopsy is superior to sextant method for diagnosing carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol. 1997;157:199.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Babaian RJ, Toi A, Kamoi K, et al. A comparative analysis of sextant and an extended 11-core multisite directed biopsy strategy. J Urol. 2000;163:152.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Presti JC Jr, Chang JJ, Bhargava V, et al. The optimal systematic prostate biopsy scheme should include 8 rather than 6 biopsies: results of a prospective clinical trial. J Urol. 2000;163:163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Naughton CK, Miller DC, Mager DE, et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing 6 versus 12 prostate biopsy cores: impact on cancer detection. J Urol. 2000;164:388.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Mazal PR, Haitel A, Windischberger C, et al. Spatial distribution of prostate cancers undetected on initial needle biopsies. Eur Urol. 2001;39:662.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Chang JJ, Shinohara K, Hovey RM, et al. Prospective evaluation of systematic sextant transition zone biopsies in large prostates for cancer detection. Urology. 1998;52:89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Katsuto Shinohara VM, Chi T, Carroll P. Prostate needle biopsy techniques and interpretation. In: Voegelzang S, Shipley D, Linehan, editors. Genitourinary oncology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 2006. p. 111–9.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Djavan B, Remzi M, Marberger M. When to biopsy and when to stop biopsying. Urol Clin North Am. 2003;30:253.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Keetch DW, Catalona WJ, Smith DS. Serial prostatic biopsies in men with persistently elevated serum prostate specific antigen values. J Urol. 1994;151:1571.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Catalona WJ, Partin AW, Slawin KM, et al. Use of the percentage of free prostate-specific antigen to enhance differentiation of prostate cancer from benign prostatic disease: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. JAMA. 1998;279:1542.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Wang R, Chinnaiyan AM, Dunn RL, et al. Rational approach to implementation of prostate cancer antigen 3 into clinical care. Cancer. 2009;115(17):3879–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Haese A, de la Taille A, van Poppel H, et al. Clinical utility of the PCA3 urine assay in European men scheduled for repeat biopsy. Eur Urol. 2008;54:1081.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Bott SR, Henderson A, McLarty E, et al. A brachytherapy template approach to standardize saturation prostatic biopsy. BJU Int. 2004;93:629.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Lane BR, Zippe CD, Abouassaly R, et al. Saturation technique does not decrease cancer detection during follow up after initial prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2008;179:1746.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Borboroglu PG, Comer SW, Riffenburgh RH, et al. Extensive repeat transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in patients with previous benign sextant biopsies. J Urol. 2000;163:158.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Stewart CS, Leibovich BC, Weaver AL, et al. Prostate cancer diagnosis using a saturation needle biopsy technique after previous negative sextant biopsies. J Urol. 2001;166:86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Fleshner N, Klotz L. Role of “saturation biopsy” in the detection of prostate cancer among difficult diagnostic cases. Urology. 2002;60:93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Pham KN, Porter CR, Odem-Davis K, et al. Transperineal template guided prostate biopsy selects candidates for active surveillance—how many cores are enough? J Urol. 2015;194(3):674–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Seles M, Gutschi T, Mayrhofer K, et al. Sampling of the anterior apical region results in increased cancer detection and upgrading in transrectal repeat saturation biopsy of the prostate. BJU Int. 2016;117(4):592–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Mabjeesh NJ, Lidawi G, Chen J, et al. High detection rate of significant prostate tumours in anterior zones using transperineal ultrasound-guided template saturation biopsy. BJU Int. 2012;110(7):993–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Magers MJ, Zhan T, Udager AM, et al. Clinicopathologic characteristics of anterior prostate cancer (APC), including correlation with previous biopsy pathology. Med Oncol. 2015;32(11):249.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Moran BJ, et al. Re-biopsy of the prostate with stereotactic transperineal technique. J Urol. 2006;176:1376–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Ukimura O, Coleman JA, de la Taille A, et al. Contemporary role of systematic prostate biopsies: indications, techniques, and implications for patient care. Eur Urol. 2013 Feb;63(2):214–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Wegelin O, van Melick HHE, Hooft L, et al. Comparing three different techniques for magnetic resonance imaging-targeted prostate biopsies: a systematic review of in-bore versus magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion versus cognitive registration. Is there a preferred technique. Eur Urol. 2017;71:517–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Wysock JS, Rosenkrantz AB, Huang WC, et al. A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial. Eur Urol. 2014;66:343–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Monda SM, Vetter JM, Andriole GL, Fowler KJ, Shetty AS, Weese JR, et al. Cognitive versus software fusion for MRI-targeted biopsy: experience before and after implementation of fusion. Urology. 2018;119:115–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Ouzzane A, Puech P, Lemaitre L, et al. Combined multiparametric MRI and targeted biopsies improve anterior prostate cancer detection, staging, and grading. Urology. 2011;78:1356–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Pinto PA, Chung PH, Rastinehad AR, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol. 2011;186:1281–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Ahmed HU, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389(10071):815–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Bjurlin MA, Carroll PR, Eggener S, et al. Update of the AUA policy statement on the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis, staging and management of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2019;198(4):832–8.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Egawa S, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. The sonographic appearance of irradiated prostate cancer. Br J Urol. 1991;68:172.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Whittington R, Broderick GA, Arger P, et al. The effect of androgen deprivation on the early changes in prostate volume following transperineal ultrasound guided interstitial therapy for localized carcinoma of the prostate. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;44:1107.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Kapoor DA, Wasserman NF, Zhang G, et al. Value of transrectal ultrasound in identifying local disease after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 1993;41:594.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Goldenberg SL, Carter M, Dashefsky S, et al. Sonographic characteristics of the urethrovesical anastomosis in the early post-radical prostatectomy patient. J Urol. 1992;147:1307.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Maatman TJ, Bigham D, Stirling B. Simplified management of post-prostate biopsy rectal bleeding. Urology. 2002;60:508.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Rodriguez LV, Terris MK. Risks and complications of transrectal ultrasound guided prostate needle biopsy: a prospective study and review of the literature. J Urol. 1998;160:2115.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Raaijmakers R, Kirkels WJ, Roobol MJ, et al. Complication rates and risk factors of 5802 transrectal ultrasound-guided sextant biopsies of the prostate within a population-based screening program. Urology. 2002;60:826.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Thompson PM, Pryor JP, Williams JP, et al. The problem of infection after prostatic biopsy: the case for the transperineal approach. Br J Urol. 1982;54:736.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Desmond PM, Clark J, Thompson IM, et al. Morbidity with contemporary prostate biopsy. J Urol. 1993;150:1425.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Moul JW, Bauer JJ, Srivastava S, et al. Perineal seeding of prostate cancer as the only evidence of clinical recurrence 14 years after needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy: molecular correlation. Urology. 1998;51:158.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Moul JW, Miles BJ, Skoog SJ, et al. Risk factors for perineal seeding of prostate cancer after needle biopsy. J Urol. 1989;142:86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Bastacky SS, Walsh PC, Epstein JI. Needle biopsy associated tumor tracking of adenocarcinoma of the prostate. J Urol. 1991;145:1003.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Koppie TM, Grady BP, Shinohara K. Rectal wall recurrence of prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Urol. 2002;168:2120.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Hara N, Kasahara T, Kawasaki T, et al. Frequency of PSA-mRNA-bearing cells in the peripheral blood of patients after prostate biopsy. Br J Cancer. 2001;85:557.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. Meng MV, Shinohara K, Grossfeld GD. Significance of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia on prostate biopsy. Urol Oncol. 2003;21:145.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Oyasu R, Bahnson RR, Nowels K, et al. Cytological atypia in the prostate gland: frequency, distribution and possible relevance to carcinoma. J Urol. 1986;135:959.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Prange W, Erbersdobler A, Hammerer P, et al. Significance of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in needle biopsy specimens. Urology. 2001;57:486.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Davidson D, Bostwick DG, Qian J, et al. Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia is a risk factor for adenocarcinoma: predictive accuracy in needle biopsies. J Urol. 1995;154:1295.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Lefkowitz GK, Sidhu GS, Torre P, et al. Is repeat prostate biopsy for high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia necessary after routine 12-core sampling? Urology. 2001;58:999.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Helpap BG, Bostwick DG, Montironi R. The significance of atypical adenomatous hyperplasia and prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia for the development of prostate carcinoma. An update. Virchows Arch. 1995;426:425.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Helpap B, Bonkhoff H, Cockett A, et al. Relationship between atypical adenomatous hyperplasia (AAH), prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) and prostatic adenocarcinoma. Pathologica. 1997;89:288.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Iczkowski KA, Chen HM, Yang XJ, et al. Prostate cancer diagnosed after initial biopsy with atypical small acinar proliferation suspicious for malignancy is similar to cancer found on initial biopsy. Urology. 2002;60:851.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Iczkowski KA, MacLennan GT, Bostwick DG. Atypical small acinar proliferation suspicious for malignancy in prostate needle biopsies: clinical significance in 33 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 1997;21:1489.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Alsikafi NF, Brendler CB, Gerber GS, et al. High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia with adjacent atypia is associated with a higher incidence of cancer on subsequent needle biopsy than high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia alone. Urology. 2001;57:296.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Park S, Shinohara K, Grossfeld GD, et al. Prostate cancer detection in men with prior high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2001;165:1409.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Javidan J, Wood DP. Clinical interpretation of the prostate biopsy. Urol Oncol. 2003;21:141.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Makhlouf AA, Krupski TL, Kunkle D, et al. The effect of sampling more cores on the predictive accuracy of pathological grade and tumour distribution in the prostate biopsy. BJU Int. 2004;93:271.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Wills ML, Sauvageot J, Partin AW, et al. Ability of sextant biopsies to predict radical prostatectomy stage. Urology. 1998;51:759.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Ravery V, Boccon-Gibod LA, Dauge-Geffroy MC, et al. Systematic biopsies accurately predict extracapsular extension of prostate cancer and persistent/recurrent detectable PSA after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 1994;44:371.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Badalament RA, Miller MC, Peller PA, et al. An algorithm for predicting nonorgan confined prostate cancer using the results obtained from sextant core biopsies with prostate specific antigen level. J Urol. 1996;156:1375.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Clinical utility of percent-positive prostate biopsies in predicting biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy or external-beam radiation therapy for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Mol Urol. 2000;4:171.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Naya Y, Slaton JW, Troncoso P, et al. Tumor length and location of cancer on biopsy predict for side specific extraprostatic cancer extension. J Urol. 2004;171:1093.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Freedland SJ, Aronson WJ, Terris MK, et al. Percent of prostate needle biopsy cores with cancer is significant independent predictor of prostate specific antigen recurrence following radical prostatectomy: results from SEARCH database. J Urol. 2003;169:2136.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Freedland SJ, Csathy GS, Dorey F, et al. Percent prostate needle biopsy tissue with cancer is more predictive of biochemical failure or adverse pathology after radical prostatectomy than prostate specific antigen or Gleason score. J Urol. 2002;167:516.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Freedland SJ, Csathy GS, Dorey F, et al. Clinical utility of percent prostate needle biopsy tissue with cancer cutpoints to risk stratify patients before radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2002;60:84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Elliott SP, Shinohara K, Logan SL, et al. Sextant prostate biopsies predict side and sextant site of extracapsular extension of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2002;168:105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Brullet E, Guevara MC, Campo R, et al. Massive rectal bleeding following transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Endoscopy. 2000;32:792.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Seattle, WA, USA

    Christopher R. Porter & Jason K. Frankel

Authors
  1. Christopher R. Porter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jason K. Frankel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher R. Porter .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas, Dallas, TX, USA

    Pat F. Fulgham

  2. Zucker School of Medicine of Hofstra/Northwell, The Arthur Smith Institute for Urology, New Hyde Park, NY, USA

    Bruce R. Gilbert

Appendix A List of medications to Be Avoided Prior to Biopsy

Appendix A List of medications to Be Avoided Prior to Biopsy

Aminosalicylic acid (Paser)

Topical medication (cream, gel, ointment, etc.)

Aspirin (numerous, e.g., Bayer, Bufferin, Ecotrin, Fiorinal, Aspergum, Alka-Seltzer, Percodan, Anacin, Goody’s, Zorprin)

Diclofenac (Flector, Solaraze, Voltaren)

Celecoxib (Celebrex)

Trolamine (e.g., Aspercreme, Mobisyl, Myoflex)

Choline magnesium trisalicylate

Methyl salicylate (e.g., Salonpas, Icy Hot)

Clopidogrel (Plavix)

Ophthalmic medication

Cilostazol (Pletal)

Bromfenac (Xibrom)

Diclofenac (Cataflam, Voltaren, Arthrotec)

Diclofenac (Voltaren)

Diflunisal

Flurbiprofen (Ocufen)

Dipyridamole (Aggrenox, Persantine)

Ketorolac (Acular)

Etodolac (Lodine)

Nepafenac (Nevanac)

Fenoprofen

Injectable medication

Flurbiprofen

Enoxaparin (Lovenox)

Ibuprofen (e.g., Advil, Midol, Motrin)

Dalteparin (Fragmin)

Indomethacin (Indocin)

Fondaparinux (Arixtra)

Ketoprofen (Orudis)

Heparin (HepFlush, Hep-Lock)

Ketorolac (Toradol)

Tinzaparin (Innohep)

Magnesium salicylate (e.g., Doan’s, Momentum)

Ketorolac (Toradol)

Meclofenamate

Herbals/natural productsa

Mefenamic acid (Ponstel)

Aloe

Meloxicam (Mobic)

Bilberry

Nabumetone (Relafen)

Cayenne

Naproxen (e.g., Aleve, Naprosyn, Pamprin, Treximet)

Dong quai

Oxaprozin (Daypro)

Feverfew

Piroxicam (Feldene)

Fish oil

Salicylamide (e.g., BC Fast Pain Relief, Lobac)

Flaxseed oil

Salsalate

Garlic

Sulindac (Clinoril)

Ginger

Ticlopidine (Ticlid)

Ginkgo biloba

Tolmetin

Ginseng

Warfarin (Coumadin, Jantoven)

Glucosamine, chondroitin

 Many OTC headache, allergy, and cough and cold products also contain aspirin, ibuprofen, or naproxen

Golden seal

 Tylenol is okay. Take as instructed

Supplement oils

 

Vitamin E

  1. Prior to surgery, it is important to review all medications you are taking with your physician as some products may increase your risk of bleeding. These include prescription, over-the-counter (OTC), and herbal products. Please notify your physician if you are taking any of the following medications. *Medications are listed by their generic name, with some common brand names in parentheses.
  2. Always consult your healthcare provider if you are unsure if you are taking a medication that may increase your bleeding risk.
  3. aIncludes pills, liquids, teas, etc.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Porter, C.R., Frankel, J.K. (2021). Ultrasound for Prostate Biopsy. In: Fulgham, P.F., Gilbert, B.R. (eds) Practical Urological Ultrasound. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52309-1_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52309-1_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-52308-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-52309-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation