Zusammenfassung
Die klinische und histologische Primärdiagnostik des Prostatakarzinoms zählt zu den wichtigsten Aufgaben der Urologen und Urologinnen. Die hohe Prävalenz multiresistenter Mikroorganismen führt zusehends zu einer erhöhten Inzidenz von Sepsis nach transrektaler Biopsie und erfordert einen Wechsel von der bis dato als Goldstandard gesehenen Technik zur perinealen Fusionsbiopsie nach erfolgtem multiparametrischen MRT der Prostata. Dieser Artikel liefert sowohl einen Überblick über wichtige Unterschiede zwischen den Methoden als auch eine detaillierte Beschreibung der transperinealen Fusionsbiopsie in Lokalanästhesie.
Abstract
The clinical and histological diagnosis of prostate cancer is a crucial aspect of the routine work of a urologist. The high prevalence of multiresistant microorganisms leads to an increased incidence of sepsis after transrectal prostate biopsy. It requires a switch from the still gold-standard method to the transperineal fusion biopsy procedure after multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). This article provides an overview of the most important differences between the two methods and gives a detailed methodological description of transperineal fusion biopsy under local anesthesia.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Literatur
Awmf Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF): S3-Leitlinie Prostatakarzinom, Langversion 6.2, 2021, AWMF Registernummer: 043/022OL, http://www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/leitlinien/prostatakarzinom/ (abgerufen am: 3. Jan. 2023).
Borghesi M, Ahmed H, Nam R et al (2017) Complications after systematic, random, and image-guided prostate biopsy. Eur Urol 71:353–365
Eau Guidelines on Prostate cancer http://uroweb.org/guidelines/compilations-of-all-guidelines/ March 2022 (abgerufen am: 6. Jan. 2023).
Eminaga O, Hinkelammert R, Abbas M et al (2015) Prostate cancers detected on repeat prostate biopsies show spatial distributions that differ from those detected on the initial biopsies. BJU Int 116:57–64
Gorin MA, Meyer AR, Zimmerman M et al (2020) Transperineal prostate biopsy with cognitive magnetic resonance imaging/biplanar ultrasound fusion: description of technique and early results. World J Urol 38:1943–1949
Grummet JP, Weerakoon M, Huang S et al (2014) Sepsis and ‘superbugs’: should we favour the transperineal over the transrectal approach for prostate biopsy? BJU Int 114:384–388
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 188:781–785
Huang H, Wang W, Lin T et al (2016) Comparison of the complications of traditional 12 cores transrectal prostate biopsy with image fusion guided transperineal prostate biopsy. BMC Urol 16:68
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M et al (2018) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 378:1767–1777
Kum F, Elhage O, Maliyil J et al (2020) Initial outcomes of local anaesthetic freehand transperineal prostate biopsies in the outpatient setting. BJU Int 125:244–252
Liss MA, Ehdaie B, Loeb S et al (2017) An update of the American urological association white paper on the prevention and treatment of the more common complications related to prostate biopsy. J Urol 198:329–334
Meyer AR, Joice GA, Schwen ZR et al (2018) Initial experience performing in-office ultrasound-guided transperineal prostate biopsy under local anesthesia using the precisionpoint transperineal access system. Urology 115:8–13
Miah S, Eldred-Evans D, La Simmons M et al (2018) Patient reported outcome measures for transperineal template prostate mapping biopsies in the PICTURE study. J Urol 200:1235–1240
Mortazavi-Tabatabaei SR, Ghaderkhani J, Nazari A et al (2019) Pattern of antibacterial resistance in urinary tract infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Prev Med 10:169
Neale A, Stroman L, Kum F et al (2020) Targeted and systematic cognitive freehand-guided transperineal biopsy: is there still a role for systematic biopsy? BJU Int 126:280–285
Pepdjonovic L, Tan GH, Huang S et al (2017) Zero hospital admissions for infection after 577 transperineal prostate biopsies using single-dose cephazolin prophylaxis. World J Urol 35:1199–1203
Rabbani F, Stroumbakis N, Kava BR et al (1998) Incidence and clinical significance of false-negative sextant prostate biopsies. J Urol 159:1247–1250
RKI (2019) Zentrum für Krebsregisterdaten 2019
Schouten MG, Van Der Leest M, Pokorny M et al (2017) Why and where do we miss significant prostate cancer with multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging followed by magnetic resonance-guided and Transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy in biopsy-naive men? Eur Urol 71:896–903
Xiang J, Yan H, Li J et al (2019) Transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol 17:31
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Interessenkonflikt
P.L. Pfitzinger, B. Enzinger, B. Ebner, T. Ivanova, Y. Volz, M. Chaloupka, M. Apfelbeck und C. Stief geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.
Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autor/-innen keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.
Additional information
QR-Code scannen & Beitrag online lesen
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pfitzinger, P.L., Enzinger, B., Ebner, B. et al. Transrektale vs. transperineale Fusionsbiopsie der Prostata. Urologie 62, 473–478 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-023-02066-9
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-023-02066-9