Advertisement

Interventional Ultrasound: Transperineal and Transrectal Prostatic Biopsy

  • Andrea FandellaEmail author
  • Pietro Pepe
Chapter

Abstract

PSA and/or rectal examination suspects remain the main indications for biopsy [1–4]. A prostate biopsy may be indicated for PSA values that exceed the thresholds of common use and almost always for values above 10 ng/ml; in this regard it is suggested to always repeat the PSA before making a decision. PSA level should be verified after a few weeks using the same assay under standardized conditions (i.e., no ejaculation, manipulations, urinary tract infections, prostate inflammation, and trauma) in the same laboratory [2, 3]. Empiric use of antibiotics in an asymptomatic patient in order to lower the PSA should not be undertaken [4].

Keywords

Prostate Biopsy Repeat Biopsy Prostate Inflammation Saturation Biopsy Atypical Small Acinar Proliferation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Supplementary material

Video 26.1

Transrectal end-fire probe: infiltration anesthesia corner between prostate and seminal vesicle through a long thin needle (with echogenic tip) inserted in the channel of the probe (MOV 50625 kb)

Video 26.2

Transrectal end-fire probe: prostate biopsy in the peripheral rear area (MOV 21206 kb)

Video 26.3

Transrectal end-fire probe: prostate biopsy in the peripheral right area (MOV 13576 kb)

Video 26.4

Transrectal end-fire probe: prostate biopsy in the peripheral anterior area (MOV 17760 kb)

Video 26.5

Transperineal prostate biopsy of the periphery of the gland (longitudinal scan): needle biopsy (18 gauge tru-cut) in the periphery of the gland (WMV 2141 kb)

Video 26.6

Transperineal prostate biopsy of the anterior zone of the gland (longitudinal scan): needle biopsy (18 gauge tru-cut) in the anterior zone of the gland (WMV 1389 kb)

Video 26.7

3.0 Tesla pelvic multiparametric MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy (ACHIEVA 3.0 Tesla; Philips Healthcare Best, the Netherlands – Logiq E9 General Electric; Milwaukee, WI): following multiparametric MRI/TRUS fusion procedure, the needle performs the targeted biopsy in the suspicious zone (marker) of the prostate (WMV 7844 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Roobol MJ, Steyerberg EW, Kranse R et al (2010) A risk-based strategy improves prostate-specific antigen driven detection of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 57(1):79–85CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Richie JP, Catalona WJ, Ahmann FR et al (1993) Effect of patient age on early detection of prostate cancer with serum prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination. Urology 42(4):365–374CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carvalhal GF, Smith DS, Mager DE et al (1999) Digital rectal examination for detecting prostate cancer at prostate specific antigen levels of 4 ng/mL or less. J Urol 161:835–839CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Okotie OT, Roehl KA, Han M et al (2007) Characteristics of prostate cancer detected by digital rectal examination only. Urology 70(6):1117–1120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eastham JA, Riedel E, Scardino PT, Polyp Prevention Trial Study Group et al (2003) Variation of serum prostate-specific antigen levels: an evaluation of year-to-year fluctuations. JAMA 289(20):2695–2700CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stephan C, Klaas M, Muller C et al (2006) Interchangeability of measurements of total and free prostate specific antigen in serum with 5 frequently used assay combinations: an update. Clin Chem 52(1):59–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fandella A, Benvenuto S, Guidoni E, Giampaoli M, Bertaccini A (2014) Empiric antibiotics therapy for mildly elevated prostate-specific antigen: helpful to avoid unnecessary biopsies. Arch Ital Urol Androl 86(3):202–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bertaccini A, Fandella A, Prayer-Galetti T, Scattoni V, Galosi AB, Ficarra V, Trombetta C, Gion M, Martorana G, Italian Group for Developing Clinical Practice Guidelines on Performing Prostate Biopsy (2007) Systematic development of clinical practice guidelines for prostate biopsies: a 3-year Italian project. Anticancer Res 27(1B):659–666PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liss MA, Peeples AN, Peterson EM (2011) Detection of fluoroquinolone resistant organisms from rectal swabs by use of selective media prior to a transrectal prostate biopsy. J Clin Microbiol 49:1116CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cuevas O, Oteo J, Lázaro E, Spanish EARS-Net Study Group et al (2011) Significant ecological impact on the progression of fluoroquinolone resistance in Escherichia coli with increased community use of moxifloxacin, levofloxacin and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid. J Antimicrob Chemother 66(3):664–669CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Loeb S, Carter HB, Berndt SI et al (2011) Complications after prostate biopsy: data from SEER-medicare. J Urol 186(5):1830–1834CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Duplessis CA, Bavaro M, Simons MP et al (2012) Rectal cultures before transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy reduce postprostatic biopsy infection rates. Urology 79:556–563CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    von Knobloch R, Weber J, Varga Z et al (2002) Bilateral fine-needle administered local anaesthetic nerve block for pain control during TRUS-guided multi-core prostate biopsy: a prospective randomised trial. Eur Urol 41(5):508–514; discussion 514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Adamakis I, Mitropoulos D, Haritopoulos K et al (2004) Pain during transrectal ultrasonography guided prostate of lidocaine-prilocaine cream. World J Urol 22(4):281–284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Acher P, Dooldeniya M (2013) Prostate biopsy: will transperineal replace transrectal? BJU Int 112:533–534CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pepe P, Aragona F (2014) Prostate biopsy: results and advantages of the transperineal approach – twenty-year experience of a single center. World J Urol 32:373–377CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Briers E, van den Bergh RCN, Bolla M, van Casteren NJ, Cornford P, Culine S, Joniau S, Lam T, Mason MD, Matveev V, van der Poel H, van der Kwast TH, Rouvière O, Wiegel T (2015) Prostate cancer guidelines. European Association of UrologyGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ravery V, Goldblatt L, Royer B, Blanc E, Toublanc M, Boccon-Gibod L (2000) Extensive biopsy protocol improves the detection rate of prostate cancer. J Urol 164:393–396CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eskew LA, Bare RL, McCullough DL (1997) Systematic 5 region prostate biopsy is superior to sextant method for diagnosing carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol 157:199–202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Beurton D, Izadifar V, Barthelemy Y, Desgrippes A, Fontaine E (2000) 12 systematic prostate biopsies are superior to sextant biopsies for diagnosing carcinoma: a prospective randomised study. Eur Urol 37:296–299Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Scattoni V, Raber M, Abdollah F, Roscigno M, Dehò F, Angiolilli D, Maccagnano C, Gallina A, Capitanio U, Freschi M, Doglioni C, Rigatti P, Montorsi F (2010) Biopsy schemes with the fewest cores for detecting 95% of the prostate cancers detected by a 24-core biopsy. Eur Urol 57:1–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pepe P, Aragona F (2005) Prostate needle biopsy: 12 vs. 18 cores – is it necessary? Urol Int 74:19–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cormio L, Scattoni V, Lorusso F, Perrone A, Di Fino G, Selvaggio O, Sanguedolce F, Bufo P, Montorsi F, Carrieri G (2014) Prostate cancer detection rates in different biopsy schemes. Which cores for which patients? World J Urol 32:341–346CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Abdollah F, Novara G, Briganti A, Scattoni V, Raber M, Roscigno M, Suardi N, Gallina A, Artibani W, Ficarra V, Cestari A, Guazzoni G, Rigatti P, Montorsi F (2011) Trans-rectal versus trans-perineal saturation rebiopsy of the prostate: is there a difference in cancer detection rate? Urology 77:921–925CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Remzi M, Fong YK, Dobrovits M, Anagnostou T, Seitz C, Waldert M, Harik M, Marihart S, Marberger M, Djavan B (2005) The Vienna nomogram: validation of a novel biopsy strategy defining the optimal number of cores based on patient age and total prostate volume. J Urol 174:1256–1260CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shen PF, Zhu YC, Wei WR, Li YZ, Yang J, Li YT, Li DM, Jia Wang J, Zeng H (2012) The results of transperineal versus transrectal prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Androl 14:310–315CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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 166:86–91CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rabets JC, Jones JS, Patel A, Zippe CD (2004) Prostate cancer detection with office based saturation biopsy in a repeat biopsy population. J Urol 172:94–97CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fandella A, Bertaccini A, Consonni P, Introini C, Gunelli R, Gruppo Italiano Biopsia Prostatica (2005) Prostate biopsy: re-biopsy after first negative biopsy. Arch Ital Urol Androl 77:39–49PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pepe P, Aragona F (2007) Saturation prostate needle biopsy and prostate cancer detection at initial and repeat evaluation. Urology 70:1131–1135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pepe P, Dibenedetto G, Pennisi M, Fraggetta F, Colecchia M, Aragona F (2014) Detection rate of anterior prostate cancer in 226 patients submitted to initial and repeat transperineal biopsy. Urol Int 93:189–192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mabjeesh NJ, Lidawi G, Chen J, German L, Matzkin H (2012) High detection rate of significant prostate tumours in anterior zones using transperineal ultrasound-guided template saturation biopsy. BJU Int 110:993–997CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Seles M, Gutschi T, Mayrhofer K, Fischereder K, Ehrlich G, Gallé G, Gutschi S, Pachernegg O, Pummer K, Augustin H (2015) Sampling of the anterior apical region results in increased cancer detection and upgrading in transrectal repeat saturation biopsy of the prostate. BJU Int 117(4):592–597. doi: 10.1111/bju.13108 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Orikasa K, Ito A, Ishidoya S, Saito S, Endo M, Arai Y (2008) Anterior apical biopsy: is it useful for prostate cancer detection? Int J Urol 15:900–904CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Galosi AB, Tiroli M, Cantoro D, Conti A, Muzzonigro G (2010) Biopsy of the anterior prostate gland: technique with end-fire transrectal ultrasound. Arch Ital Urol Androl 82:248–252PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hossack T, Patel MI, Huo A, Brenner P, Yuen C, Spernat D, Mathews J, Haynes AM, Sutherland R, del Prado W, Stricker P (2012) Location and pathological characteristics of cancers in radical prostatectomy specimens identified by transperineal biopsy compared to transrectal biopsy. J Urol 188:781–785CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fernandez Gomez JM, Garcia Rodriguez J (2014) Optimization of prostate biopsy in patients considered for active surveillance. The role of the confirmatory biopsy and transperineal techniques. Arch Esp Urol 67:409–418PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Symons JL, Huo A, Yuen CL, Haynes AM, Matthews J, Sutherland RL, Brenner P, Stricker PD (2013) Outcomes of transperineal template-guided prostate biopsy in 409 patients. BJU Int 112:585–593CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bittner N, Merrick GS, Butler WM, Bennett A, Galbreath RW (2013) Incidence and pathological features of prostate cancer detected on transperineal template guided mapping biopsy after negative transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy. J Urol 190:509–514CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Taira AV, Merrick GS, Bennett A, Andreini H, Taubenslag W, Galbreath RW, Butler WM, Bittner N, Adamovich E (2013) Transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy as a staging procedure to select patients best suited for active surveillance. Am J Clin Oncol 36:116–120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pepe P, Patanè D, Panella P, Aragona F (2003) Does the adjunct of ecographic contrast medium Levovist improve the detection rate of prostate cancer? Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 6:159–162CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pepe P, Candiano G, Pennisi M, Aragona F (2010) Can Sonovue targeted biopsy replace extended or saturation biopsy in prostate cancer diagnosis? Our experience at primary and repeat biopsy. Arch Ital Urol Androl 82:155–159PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Taverna G, Morandi G, Seveso M, Giusti G, Benetti A, Colombo P, Minuti F, Grizzi F, Graziotti P (2011) Colour Doppler and microbubble contrast agent ultrasonography do not improve cancer detection rate in transrectal systematic prostate biopsy sampling. BJU Int 108:1723–1727CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pinto PA, Chung PH, Rastinehad AR, Caccala AA Jr, Kruecker J, Bejamin CJ (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 186:1281–1285CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Aboumarzouk OM, Ogston S, Huang Z, Evans A, Melzer A, Stolzenberg JU, Nabi G (2012) Diagnostic accuracy of transrectal elastosonography (TRES) imaging for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int 110:1414–1423CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hara R, Jo Y, Fujii T, Kondo N, Yokoyoma T, Miyaji Y, Nagai A (2008) Optimal approach for prostate cancer detection as initial biopsy: prospective randomized study comparing transperineal versus transrectal systematic 12-core biopsy. Urology 71:191–195CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kuru TH, Saeb-Parsy K, Cantiani A, Frey J, Lombardo R, Serrao E, Gaziev G, Koo B, Roethke M, Gnanapragasam V, Warren A, Doble A, Hadaschik B, Kastner C (2014) Evolution of repeat prostate biopsy strategies incorporating transperineal and MRI-TRUS fusion techniques. World J Urol 32:945–950CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Komai Y, Numao N, Yoshida S, Matsuoka Y, Nakanishi Y, Ishii C, Koga F, Saito K, Masuda H, Fujii Y, Kawakami S, Kihara K (2013) High diagnostic ability of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect anterior prostate cancer missed by transrectal 12-core biopsy. J Urol 190:867–873CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mozer P, Rouprêt M, Le Cossec C, Granger B, Comperat E, de Gorski A, Cussenot O, Renard-Penna R (2015) First round of targeted biopsies with magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound-fusion images compared to conventional ultrasound-guided trans-rectal biopsies for the diagnosis of localised prostate cancer. BJU Int 115:50–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo G, Candiano G, Pietropaolo F, Pennisi M, Aragona F (2013) Prostate cancer detection at repeat biopsy: can pelvic phased-array multiparametric MRI replace saturation biopsy? Anticancer Res 33:1195–1199PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Quentin M, Biondin D, Klasen J, Schek J, Buchbender C, Miese FR, Antoch G, Barski D, Albers P, Arsov C (2012) Evaluation of a structured report of functional prostate magnetic resonance imaging in patients with suspicion for prostate cancer or under active surveillance. Urol Int 89:25–29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hoeks CM, Somford DM, van Oort IM, Vergunst H, Oddens JR, Smits GA, Roobol MJ, Bul M, Hambrock T, Witjes JA, Fütterer JJ, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Barentsz JO (2014) Value of 3-T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance-guided biopsy for early risk restratification in active surveillance of low-risk prostate cancer: a prospective multicenter cohort study. Invest Radiol 49:165–172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Scott S, Samaratunga H, Chabert C, Breckenridge M, Gianduzzo T (2015) Is transperineal prostate biopsy more accurate than transrectal biopsy in determining final Gleason score and clinical risk category? A comparative analysis. BJU Int 116(Suppl 3):26–30. doi: 10.1111/bju.13165 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, Pickles T, Kakehi Y, Rannikko A, Bjartell A, van der Schoot DK, Cornel EB, Conti GN, Boevé ER, Staerman F, Vis-Maters JJ, Vergunst H, Jaspars JJ, Strölin P, van Muilekom E, Schröder FH, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ (2013) Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 63:597–603CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Chung PH, Darwish OM, Roehrborn CG, Kapur P, Lotan Y (2015) Histologic upgrading in patients eligible for active surveillance on saturation biopsy. Can J Urol 22:7656–7660PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Thompson JE, Hayen A, Landau A, Haynes AM, Kalapara A, Ischia J, Matthews J, Frydenberg M, Stricker PD (2015) Medium-term oncological outcomes for extended vs. saturation biopsy and transrectal vs. transperineal biopsy in active surveillance for prostate cancer. BJU Int 115:884–891CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Phan KN, Porter CR, Odem-Davis K, Wolff EM, Jeldres C, Wei JT, Morgan TM (2015) Transperineal template guided prostate biopsy selects candidates for active surveillance: how many cores are enough? J Urol 194:674–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Katz DJ, Pinochet R, Richards KA, Godoy G, Udo K, Nogueira L, Cronin AM, Fine SW, Scardino PT, Coleman JA (2014) Comparison of transperineal mapping biopsy results with whole-mount radical prostatectomy pathology in patients with localized prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer 2014:781438. doi: 10.1155/2014/781438, Epub 2014 May 11CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ouzzane A, Renard Penna R, Marliere F, Mozer P, Olivier J, Barkatz J, Puech P, Villers A (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy improves selection of patients considered for active surveillance for clinically low risk prostate cancer based on systematic biopsies. J Urol 194:350–356CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kamrava M, Kishan AU, Margolis DJ, Huang J, Dorey F, Lieu P, Kupelian PA, Marks LS (2015) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer improves Gleason score assessment in favorable risk prostate cancer. Pract Radiat Oncol. pii: S18798500 (15)00154X. doi:  10.1016/j.prro.2015.04.006. [Epub ahead of print]
  61. 61.
    Radtke JP, Kuru TH, Boxler S, Alt CD, Popeneciu IV, Huettenbrink C, Klein T, Steinemann S, Bergstraesser C, Roethke M, Roth W, Schlemmer HP, Hohenfellner M, Hadaschik BA (2015) Comparative analysis of transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy with magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion guidance. J Urol 193:87–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Kuru TH, Roethke MC, Seidenader J, Simpfendörfer T, Boxler S, Alammar K, Rieker P, Popeneciu VI, Roth W, Pahernik S, Schlemmer HP, Hohenfellner M, Hadaschik BA (2013) Critical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging targeted, transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal fusion biopsy for detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 190:1380–1386CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Fascelli M, George AK, Frye T, Turkbey B, Choyke PL, Pinto PA (2015) The role of MRI in active surveillance for prostate cancer. Curr Urol Rep 16:42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Kim TH, Jeong JY, Lee SW, Kim CK, Park BK, Sung HH, Jeon HG, Jeong BC, Seo SI, Lee HM, Choi HY, Jeon SS (2015) Diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer in potential candidates for active surveillance. Eur Radiol 25:1786–1792CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Guo R, Cai L, Fan Y, Jin J, Zhou L, Zhang K (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates with low-risk prostate cancer; a diagnostic meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 18:221–228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Pepe P, Dibenedetto G, Garufi A, Priolo G, Pennisi M (2015) Multiparametric pelvic MRI accuracy in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer in the re-evaluation of biopsy microfocal tumor. Anticancer Res 35:395–399Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Volkin D, Turkbey B, Hoang AN, Rais-Bahrami S, Yerram N, Walton-Diaz A, Nix JW, Wood BJ, Choyke PL, Pinto PA (2014) Multiparametric MRI and subsequent MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy increase the detection of anteriorly located prostate cancers. BJU Int 114(6b):E43–E49. doi: 10.1111/bju.12670 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Pepe P, Aragona F (2013) Morbidity following transperineal prostate biopsy in 3,000 patients submitted to 12 VS 18 VS more than 24 needle cores. Urology 81:1142–1146CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Grummet JP, Weerakoon M, Huang S, Lawrentschuk N, Frydenberg M, Moon DA, O’Reilly M, Murphy D (2014) Sepsis and ‘superbugs’: should we favour the transperineal over the transrectal approach for prostate biopsy? BJU Int 114:384–388PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Minamida S, Satoh T, Tabata K, Kimura M, Tsumura H, Kurosaka S, Matsumoto K, Fujita T, Iwamura M, Baba S (2011) Prevalence of fluoroquinolone-resistant Escherichia coli before and incidence of acute bacterial prostatitis after prostate biopsy. Urology 78:1235–1239CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Pinkhasov GI, Lin YK, Palmerola R, Smith P, Mahon F, Kaag MG, Dagen JE, Harpster LE, Reese CT, Raman JD et al (2012) Complications following prostate needle biopsy requiring hospital admission or emergency department visits – experience from 1000 consecutive cases. BJU Int 110:369–374CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Ehdaie B, Vertosick E, Spaliviero M, Giallo-Uvino A, Taur Y, O’Sullivan M, Livingston J, Sogani P, Eastham J, Scardino P, Touijer K (2014) The impact of repeat biopsies on infectious complications in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. J Urol 191:660–664CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Chang DT, Challacombe B, Lawrentschuk N (2013) Transperineal biopsy of the prostate – is this the future? Nat Rev Urol 10:690–702CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Rosario DJ, Lane JA, Metcalfe C, Donovan JL, Doble A, Goodwin L, Davis M, Catto JW, Avery K, Neal DE, Hamdy FC (2012) Short term outcomes of prostate biopsy in men tested for cancer by prostate specific antigen: prospective evaluation within ProtecT study. BMJ 344:d7894. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d7894 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Yuan LR, Zhang CG, Lu LX, Ruan L, Lan JH, Feng SQ, Luo JD (2014) Comparison of ultrasound-guided transrectal and transperineal prostate biopsies in clinical application. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue 20:1004–1007PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Merrick GS, Taubenslag W, Andreini H, Brammer S, Butler WM, Adamovich E, Allen Z, Anderson R, Wallner KE (2008) The morbidity of transperineal template-guided prostate mapping biopsy. BJU Int 101:1524–1529CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y, Liu Y, Law C, Klotz LH, Loblaw DA, Trachtenberg J, Stanimirovic A, Simor AE, Seth A, Urbach DR, Narod SA (2010) Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol 183:963–968CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Donovan J, Hamdy F, Neal D, ProtecT Study Group et al (2003) Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) feasibility study. Health Technol Assess 7(14):1–88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Eichler K, Hempel S, Wilby J et al (2006) Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J Urol 175(5):1605–1612CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Shariat SF, Roehrborn CG (2008) Using biopsy to detect prostate cancer. Rev Urol 10(4):262–280PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Pelzer AE, Bektic J, Berger AP et al (2005) Are transition zone biopsies still necessary to improve prostate cancer detection? Results from the Tyrol screening project. Eur Urol 48(6):916–921; discussion 921CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Epstein JI, Herawi M (2006) Prostate needle biopsies containing prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical foci suspicious for carcinoma: implications for patient care. J Urol 175(3 Pt 1):820–834CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Merrimen JL, Jones G, Walker D, Leung CS, Kapusta LR, Srigley JR (2009) Multifocal high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia is a significant risk factor for prostatic adenocarcinoma. J Urol 182(2):485–490; discussion 490CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Kronz JD, Shaikh AA, Epstein JI (2001) High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia with adjacent small atypical glands on prostate biopsy. Hum Pathol 32(4):389–395CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Moore CK, Karikehalli S, Nazeer T et al (2005) Prognostic significance of high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and atypical small acinar proliferation in the contemporary era. J Urol 173(1):70–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Giannarini G, Mogorovich A, Valent F et al (2007) Continuing or discontinuing low-dose aspirin before transrectal prostate biopsy: results of a prospective randomized trial. Urology 70(3):501–505CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Unit of UrologyCasa di Cura Giovanni XXIIIMonastier di TrevisoItaly
  2. 2.Unit of Urology“Cannizzaro” Emergency HospitalCataniaItaly

Personalised recommendations