Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prostate Cancer Screening and Biopsy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Robotic Urologic Surgery

  • 950 Accesses

Abstract

Prostate cancer screening and prostate biopsy has seen a sea of change over the years. Though PSA and DRE are the most commonly used tools for screening prostate cancer, newer biomarkers have helped clinicians to better screen and diagnose patients with prostate cancer. Of late PSA density has proven to be particularly useful for screening and deciding the need for a biopsy. The advent of MRI-based biopsy techniques has improved targeting of the suspicious lesion. Transperineal biopsy has been adopted widely due to reduced infectious complications and the need for antibiotics.

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 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
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

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2021. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(1):7–33. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21654.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Partin AW, Mangold LA, Lamm DM, Walsh PC, Epstein JI, Pearson JD. Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. Urology. 2001;58(6):843–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Halpern JA, Shoag JE, Mittal S, Oromendia C, Ballman KV, Hershman DL, Wright JD, Shih YT, Nguyen PL, Hu JC. Prognostic significance of digital rectal examination and prostate specific antigen in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening arm. J Urol. 2017;197(2):363–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Catalona WJ, Smith DS, Ratliff TL, Dodds KM, Coplen DE, Yuan JJJ, et al. Measurement of prostate-specific antigen in serum as a screening test for prostate cancer. New Eng J Med. 1991;324:1156–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ, Tangen CM, Lucia MS, Parnes HL, et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter. New Eng J Med. 2004;350(22):2239–46.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nordström T, Akre O, Aly M, Grönberg H, Eklund M. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density in the diagnostic algorithm of prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2018;21:57–63. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-017-0024-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Yusim I, Krenawi M, Mazor E, Novack V, Mabjeesh NJ. The use of prostate specific antigen density to predict clinically significant prostate cancer. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-76786-9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Catalona WJ, Partin AW, Slawin KM, Brawer MK, Flanigan RC, Patel A, 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(19):1542–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ceylan C, Gazel E, Keleş İ, Doluoğlu Ö, Yığman M. Can the free/total PSA ratio predict the gleason score before prostate biopsy? Curr Urol. 2015;9(1):24–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Cremers RG, Eeles RA, Bancroft EK, Ringelberg-Borsboom J, Vasen HF, van Asperen CJ, et al. The role of the prostate cancer gene 3 urine test in addition to serum prostate-specific antigen level in prostate cancer screening among breast cancer, early-onset gene mutation carriers. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(5):202.e19–28.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Zappala SM, Scardino PT, Okrongly D, Linder V, Dong Y. Clinical performance of the 4Kscore Test to predict high-grade prostate cancer at biopsy: a meta-analysis of us and European clinical validation study results. Rev Urol. 2017;19(3):149–55.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Carlsson S, Maschino A, Schröder F, Bangma C, Steyerberg EW, van der Kwast T, et al. Predictive value of four kallikrein markers for pathologically insignificant compared with aggressive prostate cancer in radical prostatectomy specimens: results from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer section Rotterdam. Eur Urol. 2013;64(5):693–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Parekh DJ, Punnen S, Sjoberg DD, Asroff SW, Bailen JL, Cochran JS, et al. A multi-institutional prospective trial in the USA confirms that the 4Kscore accurately identifies men with high-grade prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2015;68(3):464–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Robinson K, Creed J, Reguly B, Powell C, Wittock R, Klein D, et al. Accurate prediction of repeat prostate biopsy outcomes by a mitochondrial DNA deletion assay. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2010;13(2):126–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Waterhouse RL Jr, Van Neste L, Moses KA, Barnswell C, Silberstein JL, Jalkut M, et al. Evaluation of an epigenetic assay for predicting repeat prostate biopsy outcome in African American men. Urology. 2019;128:62–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Haese A, Trooskens G, Steyaert S, Hessels D, Brawer M, Vlaeminck-Guillem V, et al. Multicenter optimization and validation of a 2-gene mRNA urine test for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer before initial prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2019;202(2):256–62. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000293.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hendriks RJ, van der Leest MMG, Israël B, Hannink G, YantiSetiasti A, Cornel EB, et al. Clinical use of the SelectMDx urinary-biomarker test with or without mpMRI in prostate cancer diagnosis: a prospective, multicenter study in biopsy-naïve men. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021;24(4):1110–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Perdon S, Cavadas V, di Lorenzo G, Damiano R, Chiappetta G, del Prete P, et al. Prostate cancer detection in the “grey area” of prostate-specific antigen below 10 ng/ml: head-to-head comparison of the updated PCPT calculator and Chun’s nomogram, two risk estimators incorporating prostate cancer antigen 3. Eur Urol. 2011;59(1):81–7.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Marks LS, Fradet Y, Lim Deras I, Blase A, Mathis J, Aubin SMJ, et al. PCA3 molecular urine assay for prostate cancer in men undergoing repeat biopsy. Urology. 2007;69(3):532–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Auprich M, Haese A, Walz J, Pummer K, de La Taille A, Graefen M, et al. External validation of urinary PCA3-based nomograms to individually predict prostate biopsy outcome. Eur Urol. 2010;58(5):727–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Aubin SMJ, Reid J, Sarno MJ, Blase A, Aussie J, Rittenhouse H, et al. PCA3 molecular urine test for predicting repeat prostate biopsy outcome in populations at risk: validation in the placebo arm of the dutasteride REDUCE trial. J Urol. 2010;184(5):1947–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Vis AN, Hoedemaeker RF, Roobol M, van der Kwast TH, Schrder FH. Tumor characteristics in screening for prostate cancer with and without rectal examination as an initial screening test at low PSA (0.0-3.9 ng/ml). Prostate. 2001;47(4):252–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ, al. et. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or=4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2239–46.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Berglund RK, Stephenson AJ, Cronin AM, Vickers AJ, Eastham JA, Klein EA, et al. Comparison of observed biochemical recurrence-free survival in patients with low PSA values undergoing radical prostatectomy and predictions of preoperative nomogram. Urology. 2009;73(5):1098–103.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Eastham JA, May R, Robertson JL, Sartor O, Kattan MW. Development of a nomogram that predicts the probability of a positive prostate biopsy in men with an abnormal digital rectal examination and a prostate-specific antigen between 0 and 4 ng/ml. Urology. 1999;54(4):709–13.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Young HH, Davis DM. Youngʼs practice of urology. Based on a study of 12,500 cases. South Med J. 1926;19:653.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Barringer BS. Prostatic carcinoma. J Urol. 1942;47(3):306–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)70810-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  29. Watanabe H, Igari D, Tanahasi Y, Harada K, Saito M. Development and application of new equipment for transrectal ultrasonography. J Clin Ultrasound. 1974;2(2):91–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Daniels P. Therapy Insight: management of urology patients taking long-term warfarin anticoagulation therapy. Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2005;2:343–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Giannarini G, Mogorovich A, Valent F, Morelli G, de Maria M, Manassero F, et al. Continuing or discontinuing low-dose aspirin before transrectal prostate biopsy: results of a prospective randomized trial. Urology. 2007;70(3):501–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Carmignani L, Picozzi S, Bozzini G, Negri E, Ricci C, Gaeta M, et al. Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies in patients taking aspirin for cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis. Transfus Apher Sci. 2011;45(3):275–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transci.2011.10.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ihezue CU, Smart J, Dewbury KC, Mehta R, Burgess L. Biopsy of the prostate guided by transrectal ultrasound: relation between warfarin use and incidence of bleeding complications. Clin Radiol. 2005;60(4):458–9.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Raheem OA, Casey RG, Galvin DJ, Manecksha RP, Varadaraj H, McDermott T, et al. Discontinuation of anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsies: a single-center experience. Korean J Urol. 2012;53(4):234–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Mukerji G, Munasinghe I, Raza A. A survey of the peri-operative management of urological patients on clopidogrel. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2009;91(4):313–20.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Coscarella M, Motte S, Dalati M-F, Oliveira-E-Silva T, Entezari K, Roumeguere T. New oral anticoagulation drugs and prostate biopsy: a call for guidelines. Ther Adv Urol. 2018;10(12):437–43.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Nam RK, Saskin R, Lee Y, Liu Y, Law C, Klotz LH, et al. Increasing hospital admission rates for urological complications after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2013;189(1 Suppl):S12–7. discussion S17–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Pilatz A, Dimitropoulos K, Veeratterapillay R, Yuan Y, Omar MI, MacLennan S, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of infectious complications following prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2020;204(2):224–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA updates warnings for oral and injectable fluoroquinolone antibiotics due to disabling side effects | FDA. [cited 2019 Dec 8]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-drug-safety-communication-fda-updates-warnings-oral-and-injectable-fluoroquinolone-antibiotics

  40. Roth H, Millar JL, Cheng AC, Byrne A, Evans S, Grummet J. The state of TRUS biopsy sepsis: readmissions to Victorian hospitals with TRUS biopsy-related infection over 5 years. BJU Int. 2015;116:49–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Lange D, Zappavigna C, Hamidizadeh R, Goldenberg SL, Paterson RF, Chew BH. Bacterial sepsis after prostate biopsy - a new perspective. Urology. 2009;74(6):1200–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Tamma PD, Han JH, Rock C, Harris AD, Lautenbach E, Hsu AJ, et al. Carbapenem therapy is associated with improved survival compared with piperacillin-tazobactam for patients with extended-spectrum β-lactamase bacteremia. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;60(9):1319–25.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Duplessis CA, Bavaro M, Simons MP, Marguet C, Santomauro M, Auge B, et al. Rectal cultures before transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy reduce post-prostatic biopsy infection rates. Urology. 2012;79(3):556–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Urologic Surgery Antimicrobial Prophylaxis - American Urological Association. [cited 2021 Jun 9]. Available from: https://www.auanet.org/guidelines/archived-documents/antimicrobial-prophylaxis-best-practice-statement

  45. EAU. EAU Guidelines on Urological Infections. 2021. p. Table 12/Figure 4.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Lydia G, Han TM, Christopher C, Danielle S, Yau LJ, Claudette F, et al. MP66-11 How to prevent prostate biopsy complications: to augment or to swab? J Urol. 2020;203(Suppl 4):e987. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000941.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Benjamin P, Rajan V, Konstantinos D, Yuhong Y, Imran OM, Steven M, et al. Nonantibiotic strategies for the prevention of infectious complications following prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2021;205(3):653–63. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Raman JD, Lehman KK, Dewan K, Kirimanjeswara G. Povidone iodine rectal preparation at time of prostate needle biopsy is a simple and reproducible means to reduce risk of procedural infection. J Vis Exp. 2015;103:52670.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Costa F, Pontes J Jr, Albertini A, Freire TM, ERC B, Pugliesi F, et al. A randomized controlled trial to investigate the infectious outcomes of intrarectal povidone-iodine cleansing plus formalin disinfection of needle tip during transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2019;201(4S):e271.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Park DS, Oh JJ, Lee JH, Jang WK, Hong YK, Hong SK. Simple use of the suppository type povidone-iodine can prevent infectious complications in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Adv Urol. 2009;2009:750598.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Ryu H, Song SH, Lee SE, Song K-H, Lee S. A prospective randomized trial of povidone-iodine suppository before transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy. Medicine. 2019;98(12):e14854.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Ching C, Moussa A, Li J, Lane B, Zippe C, Jones JS. Does transrectal ultrasound probe configuration really matter? End fire versus side fire probe prostate cancer detection rates. J Urol. 2009;181:2077–82. discussion 2082

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Paul R, Korzinek C, Necknig U, Niesel T, Alschibaja M, Leyh H, et al. Influence of transrectal ultrasound probe on prostate cancer detection in transrectal ultrasound-guided sextant biopsy of prostate. Urology. 2004;64(3):532–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2004.04.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Rom M, Pycha A, Wiunig C, Reissigl A, Waldert M, Klatte T, et al. Prospective randomized multicenter study comparing prostate cancer detection rates of end-fire and side-fire transrectal ultrasound probe configuration. Urology. 2012;80(1):15–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.01.061.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. van der Slot MA, Leijte JA, van der Schoot DK, Oomens EHGM, Roemeling S. End-fire versus side-fire: a randomized controlled study of transrectal ultrasound guided biopsies for prostate cancer detection. Scand J Urol. 2020;5(2):101–4.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Raber M, Scattoni V, Gallina A, Freschi M, de Almeyda EP, di Girolamo V, et al. Does the transrectal ultrasound probe influence prostate cancer detection in patients undergoing an extended prostate biopsy scheme? Results of a large retrospective study. BJU Int. 2012;109(5):672–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Kim DK, Lee JY, Jung JH, Hah YS, Koo KC, Lee KS, et al. What is the most effective local anesthesia for transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy of the prostate? A systematic review and network meta-analysis of 47 randomized clinical trials. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):4901.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Jindal T, Mukherjee S, Sinha RK, Kamal MR, Ghosh N, Saha B, et al. Transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided pelvic plexus block to reduce pain during prostate biopsy: a randomised controlled trial. BJU Int. 2015;115(6):892–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Akpinar H, Tüfek I, Atuğ F, Esen EH, Kural AR. Doppler ultrasonography-guided pelvic plexus block before systematic needle biopsy of the prostate: a prospective randomized study. Urology. 2009;74(2):267–271.e1.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Nazir B. Pain during transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy and the role of periprostatic nerve block: what radiologists should know. Korean J Radiol. 2014;15(5):543–53.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Obek C, Onal B, Ozkan B, Onder AU, Yalçin V, Solok V. Is periprostatic local anesthesia for transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy associated with increased infectious or hemorrhagic complications? A prospective randomized trial. J Urol. 2002;168(2):558–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64679-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Nguyen CT, Jones JS. Comparison of traditional basal and apical periprostatic block: impact on injection pain and biopsy pain. BJU Int. 2007;99(3):575–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Mutaguchi K, Shinohara K, Matsubara A, Yasumoto H, Mita K, Usui T. Local anesthesia during 10 core biopsy of the prostate: comparison of 2 methods. J Urol. 2005;173(3):742–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Bingqian L, Peihuan L, Yudong W, Jinxing W, Zhiyong W. Intraprostatic local anesthesia with periprostatic nerve block for transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2009;182(2):474–9.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol. 1989;142(1):71–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Eichler K, Hempel S, Wilby J, Myers L, Bachmann LM, Kleijnen J. Diagnostic value of systematic biopsy methods in the investigation of prostate cancer: a systematic review. J Urol. 2006;175(5):1605–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Meng M, v, Elkin EP, DuChane J, Carroll PR. Impact of increased number of biopsies on the nature of prostate cancer identified. J Urol. 2006;176(1):63–8. discussion 69

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Pepe P, Aragona F. Saturation prostate needle biopsy and prostate cancer detection at initial and repeat evaluation. Urology. 2007;70(6):1131–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Ploussard G, Nicolaiew N, Marchand C, Terry S, Vacherot F, Vordos D, et al. Prospective evaluation of an extended 21-core biopsy scheme as initial prostate cancer diagnostic strategy. Eur Urol. 2014;65(1):154–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Babaian RJ, Toi A, Kamoi K, Troncoso P, Sweet J, Evans R, et al. A comparative analysis of sextant and an extended 11-core multisite directed biopsy strategy. J Urol. 2000;163(1):152–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Moussa AS, Meshref A, Schoenfield L, Masoud A, Abdel-Rahman S, Li J, et al. Importance of additional “extreme” anterior apical needle biopsies in the initial detection of prostate cancer. Urology. 2010;75(5):1034–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Ravery V, Goldblatt L, Royer B, Blanc E, Toublanc M, Boccon-Gibod L. Extensive biopsy protocol improves the detection rate of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2000;164(2):393–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Presti JCJ, Chang JJ, Bhargava V, Shinohara K. The optimal systematic prostate biopsy scheme should include 8 rather than 6 biopsies: results of a prospective clinical trial. J Urol. 2000;163(1):163–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Bazinet M, Karakiewicz PI, Aprikian AG, Trudel C, Aronson S, Nachabé M, et al. Value of systematic transition zone biopsies in the early detection of prostate cancer. J Urol. 1996;155(2):605–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Pelzer AE, Bektic J, Berger AP, Halpern EJ, Koppelstätter F, Klauser A, et al. Are transition zone biopsies still necessary to improve prostate cancer detection? Results from the tyrol screening project. Eur Urol. 2005;48(6):916–21. discussion 921

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Terris MK, Pham TQ, Issa MM, Kabalin JN. Routine transition zone and seminal vesicle biopsies in all patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsies are not indicated. J Urol. 1997;157(1):204–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Meng M, v, Franks JH, Presti JCJ, Shinohara K. The utility of apical anterior horn biopsies in prostate cancer detection. Urol Oncol. 2003;21(5):361–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Djavan B, Zlotta A, Remzi M, Ghawidel K, Basharkhah A, Schulman CC, et al. Optimal predictors of prostate cancer on repeat prostate biopsy: a prospective study of 1,051 men. J Urol. 2000;163(4):1144–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Scattoni V, Zlotta A, Montironi R, Schulman C, Rigatti P, Montorsi F. Extended and saturation prostatic biopsy in the diagnosis and characterisation of prostate cancer: a critical analysis of the literature. Eur Urol. 2007;52(5):1309–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Scattoni V, Maccagnano C, Zanni G, Angiolilli D, Raber M, Roscigno M, et al. Is extended and saturation biopsy necessary? Int J Urol. 2010;17(5):432–47.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet. 2017;389(10071):815–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Thompson JE, van Leeuwen PJ, Moses D, Shnier R, Brenner P, Delprado W, et al. The diagnostic performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to detect significant prostate cancer. J Urol. 2016;195(5):1428–35.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Drost FJH, Osses D, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Roobol MJ, et al. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging, with or without magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer: a cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2020;77:78–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. van As NJ, de Souza NM, Riches SF, Morgan VA, Sohaib SA, Dearnaley DP, et al. A study of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in men with untreated localised prostate cancer on active surveillance. Eur Urol. 2009;56(6):981–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Tamada T, Sone T, Jo Y, Toshimitsu S, Yamashita T, Yamamoto A, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient values in peripheral and transition zones of the prostate: comparison between normal and malignant prostatic tissues and correlation with histologic grade. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28(3):720–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Villers A, Puech P, Mouton D, Leroy X, Ballereau C, Lemaitre L. Dynamic contrast enhanced, pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging of localized prostate cancer for predicting tumor volume: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. J Urol. 2006;176(6 Pt 1):2432–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Girouin N, Mège-Lechevallier F, Tonina Senes A, Bissery A, Rabilloud M, Maréchal J-M, et al. Prostate dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI with simple visual diagnostic criteria: is it reasonable? Eur Radiol. 2007;17(6):1498–509.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Barentsz JO, Richenberg J, Clements R, Choyke P, Verma S, Villeirs G, et al. ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(4):746–57.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. PI-RADS ® v2.1 PI-RADS ® Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System 2019 Version 2.1 PI-RADS ® Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System 2019 Version 2.1 Acknowledgements.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(19):1767–77.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Hofbauer SL, Maxeiner A, Kittner B, Heckmann R, Reimann M, Wiemer L, et al. Validation of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 for the detection of prostate cancer. J Urol. 2018;200(4):767–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo GD, Galia A, Fraggetta F, Pennisi M. Is it time to perform only magnetic resonance imaging targeted cores? our experience with 1,032 men who underwent prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2018;200(4):774–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.04.061.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D, Froemming AT, Gupta RT, Turkbey B, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS version 2 lexicon: a multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology. 2016;280(3):793–804.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. de Visschere PJL, Vral A, Perletti G, Pattyn E, Praet M, Magri V, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging characteristics of normal, benign and malignant conditions in the prostate. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(5):2095–109.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Drost FH, Osses D, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Roobol MJ, Schoots IG. Prostate magnetic resonance imaging, with or without magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy, and systematic biopsy for detecting prostate cancer: a cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2020;77(1):78–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Rouvière O, Puech P, Renard-Penna R, Claudon M, Roy C, Mège-Lechevallier F, et al. 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. 2019;20(1):100–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Sciarra A, Panebianco V, Ciccariello M, Salciccia S, Cattarino S, Lisi D, et al. Value of magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging for detecting prostate cancer foci in men with prior negative biopsy. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16(6):1875–83.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Lee SH, Chung MS, Kim JH, Oh YT, Rha KH, Chung BH. Magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in men with previously negative prostate biopsy results. J Endourol. 2012;26(7):787–91. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2011.0393.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Kongnyuy M, George AK, Rastinehad AR, Pinto PA. Magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion-guided prostate biopsy: review of technology, techniques, and outcomes. Curr Urol Rep. 2016;17:1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Seetharam Bhat KR, Samavedi S, Moschovas MC, Onol FF, Roof S, Rogers T, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-guided prostate biopsy—A review of literature. Asian J Urol. 2021;8:105–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Hadaschik BA, Kuru TH, Tulea C, Rieker P, Popeneciu IV, Simpfendörfer T, et al. A novel stereotactic prostate biopsy system integrating pre-interventional magnetic resonance imaging and live ultrasound fusion. J Urol. 2011;186(6):2214–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Verma S, Choyke PL, Eberhardt SC, Oto A, Tempany CM, Turkbey B, et al. The current state of MR imaging–targeted biopsy techniques for detection of prostate cancer. Radiology. 2017;285(2):343–56. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161684.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Woodrum D, Gorny K, Greenwood B, Mynderse L. MRI-guided prostate biopsy of native and recurrent prostate cancer. Semin Interv Radiol. 2016;33(03):196–205. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1586151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Boesen L, Nørgaard N, Løgager V, Balslev I, Bisbjerg R, Thestrup KC, et al. Assessment of the diagnostic accuracy of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men: the biparametric MRI for detection of prostate cancer (BIDOC) study. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(2):e180219.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. Pepdjonovic L, Tan GH, Huang S, Mann S, Frydenberg M, Moon D, et al. Zero hospital admissions for infection after 577 transperineal prostate biopsies using single-dose cephazolin prophylaxis. World J Urol. 2017;35(8):1199–203.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Chang DTS, Challacombe B, Lawrentschuk N. Transperineal biopsy of the prostate-is this the future? Nat Rev Urol. 2013;10:690–702.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Roberts MJ, Bennett HY, Harris PN, Holmes M, Grummet J, Naber K, et al. Prostate biopsy-related infection: a systematic review of risk factors, prevention strategies, and management approaches. Urology. 2017;104:11–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo G, Pennisi M. Transperineal versus transrectal MRI/TRUS fusion targeted biopsy: detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2017;15(1):e33–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Moran BJ, Braccioforte MH, Conterato DJ. Re-biopsy of the prostate using a stereotactic transperineal technique. J Urol. 2006;176(4):1376–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Stefanova V, Buckley R, Flax S, Spevack L, Hajek D, Tunis A, et al. Transperineal prostate biopsies using local anesthesia: experience with 1,287 patients. Prostate cancer detection rate, complications and patient tolerability. J Urol. 2019;201(6):1121–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000156.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Gross MD, Shoag JE. Hu JC. Is in-office transperineal biopsy the future of prostate cancer diagnosis? Curr Opin Urol. 2019;29(1):25–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Kubo Y, Kawakami S, Numao N, Takazawa R, Fujii Y, Masuda H, et al. Simple and effective local anesthesia for transperineal extended prostate biopsy: application to three-dimensional 26-core biopsy. Int J Urol. 2009;16(4):420–3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2009.02269.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Thurtle D, Starling L, Leonard K, Stone T, Gnanapragasam VJ. Improving the safety and tolerability of local anaesthetic outpatient transperineal prostate biopsies: A pilot study of the CAMbridge PROstate Biopsy (CAMPROBE) method. J Clin Urol. 2018;11(3):192–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. Radtke JP, Kuru TH, Boxler S, Alt CD, Popeneciu IV, Huettenbrink C, et al. Comparative analysis of transperineal template saturation prostate biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy with magnetic resonance imaging-ultrasound fusion guidance. J Urol. 2015;193(1):87–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Ho H, Yuen JSP, Mohan P, Lim EW, Cheng CWS. Robotic transperineal prostate biopsy: Pilot clinical study. Urology. 2011 Nov;78(5):1203–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Altok M, Kim B, Patel BB, Shih YCT, Ward JF, McRae SE, et al. Cost and efficacy comparison of five prostate biopsy modalities: a platform for integrating cost into novel-platform comparative research. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2018;21(4):524–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Venderink W, Govers TM, de Rooij M, Fütterer JJ, Sedelaar JPM. Cost-effectiveness comparison of imaging-guided prostate biopsy techniques: systematic transrectal ultrasound, direct in-bore MRI, and image fusion. Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(5):1058–63. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.17322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Washino S, Okochi T, Saito K, Konishi T, Hirai M, Kobayashi Y, et al. Combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density predicts biopsy outcome in prostate biopsy naïve patients. BJU Int. 2017;119(2):225–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13465.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Ullrich T, Quentin M, Arsov C, Schmaltz AK, Tschischka A, Laqua N, et al. Risk stratification of equivocal lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate. J Urol. 2018;199(3):691–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Distler FA, Radtke JP, Bonekamp D, Kesch C, Schlemmer HP, Wieczorek K, et al. The value of PSA density in combination with PI-RADS™ for the accuracy of prostate cancer prediction. J Urol. 2017;198(3):575–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Loeb S, Vellekoop A, Ahmed HU, Catto J, Emberton M, Nam R, et al. Systematic review of complications of prostate biopsy. Eur Urol. 2013;64(6):876–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Rosario DJ, Lane JA, Metcalfe C, Donovan JL, Doble A, Goodwin L, et al. Short term outcomes of prostate biopsy in men tested for cancer by prostate specific antigen: prospective evaluation within ProtecT study. BMJ (Clinical Research ed). 2012;344:d7894.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Pinkhasov GI, Lin Y-K, Palmerola R, Smith P, Mahon F, Kaag MG, et al. Complications following prostate needle biopsy requiring hospital admission or emergency department visits - experience from 1000 consecutive cases. BJU Int. 2012;110(3):369–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Dodds PR, Boucher JD, Shield DE, Bernie JE, Batter SJ, Serels SR, et al. Are complications of transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsies of the prostate gland increasing? Conn Med. 2011;75(8):453–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Chowdhury R, Abbas A, Idriz S, Hoy A, Rutherford EE, Smart JM. Should warfarin or aspirin be stopped prior to prostate biopsy? An analysis of bleeding complications related to increasing sample number regimes. Clin Radiol. 2012;67(12):e64–70.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Raaijmakers R, Kirkels WJ, Roobol MJ, Wildhagen MF, Schrder FH. Complication rates and risk factors of 5802 transrectal ultrasound-guided sextant biopsies of the prostate within a population-based screening program. Urology. 2002;60(5):826–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Lee G, Attar K, Laniado M, Karim O. Safety and detailed patterns of morbidity of transrectal ultrasound guided needle biopsy of prostate in a urologist-led unit. Int Urol Nephrol. 2006;38(2):281–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Berger AP, Gozzi C, Steiner H, Frauscher F, Varkarakis J, Rogatsch 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(4):1471–8.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Wagenlehner FME, van Oostrum E, Tenke P, Tandogdu Z, Çek M, Grabe M, et al. Infective complications after prostate biopsy: outcome of the Global Prevalence Study of Infections in Urology (GPIU) 2010 and 2011, a prospective multinational multicentre prostate biopsy study. Eur Urol. 2013;63(3):521–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Williamson DA, Roberts SA, Paterson DL, Sidjabat H, Silvey A, Masters J, et al. Escherichia coli bloodstream infection after transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: implications of fluoroquinolone-resistant sequence type 131 as a major causative pathogen. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;54(10):1406–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Liss MA, Chang A, Santos R, Nakama-Peeples A, Peterson EM, Osann K, et al. Prevalence and significance of fluoroquinolone resistant Escherichia coli in patients undergoing transrectal ultrasound guided prostate needle biopsy. J Urol. 2011;185(4):1283–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  132. Li C-K, Tong BCY, You JHS. Cost-effectiveness of culture-guided antimicrobial prophylaxis for the prevention of infections after prostate biopsy. Int J Infect Dis. 2016;43:7–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Taylor AK, Zembower TR, Nadler RB, Scheetz MH, Cashy JP, Bowen D, et al. Targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis using rectal swab cultures in men undergoing transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy is associated with reduced incidence of postoperative infectious complications and cost of care. J Urol. 2012;187(4):1275–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Global Robotics Institute, Adventhealth Celebration, Celebration, FL, USA

    K. R. Seetharam Bhat

  2. Department of Urology, Robotics and Transplantation, SJH & VMMC, New Delhi, India

    Siddharth Yadav & Anup Kumar

  3. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Sarah Kind

  4. Department of Urology, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA

    Sanoj Punnen

Authors
  1. K. R. Seetharam Bhat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Siddharth Yadav
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sarah Kind
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sanoj Punnen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anup Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, USA

    Peter Wiklund

  2. Department of Urology, ORSI Academy, Aalst, Belgium

    Alexandre Mottrie

  3. Pediatric Urology, University of Chicago Medicine and Biological Sciences, Chicago, IL, USA

    Mohan S Gundeti

  4. Urology, Global Robotics Institute, Celebration, FL, USA

    Vipul Patel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bhat, K.R.S., Yadav, S., Kind, S., Punnen, S., Kumar, A. (2022). Prostate Cancer Screening and Biopsy. In: Wiklund, P., Mottrie, A., Gundeti, M.S., Patel, V. (eds) Robotic Urologic Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-00363-9_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-00363-9_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-00362-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-00363-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation